Mr. Speaker: As the House will recall, it was decided earlier this month to dispense with most of the Sessional Orders. In their place, it was agreed that the Speaker should make a brief statement about the duties and responsibilities of Members. I am grateful to the Standards and Privileges Committee for its advice and suggestions.
	Our privileges allow us to conduct our debate without fear of outside interference. In particular, we enjoy freedom of speech, both in proceedings in Committee and debates on the Floor of the House. It is a privilege that comes with our membership since the Bill of Rights. This is one of a number of great privileges that we should all seek to preserve.
	It is up to each one of us to ensure that we, both as individuals and collectively, do not abuse the rights that we have been given. They should only be exercised in the public interest. We must ensure that we follow the letter and spirit of the code of conduct and related rules which we have approved to regulate our business.
	Each Member is here to represent the views of his or her constituents and to participate in the process of democracy that we all cherish. It is the hallmark of our procedures that every Member has the right to speak and to be listened to. We should ensure that every Member is heard with the respect to which we are all entitled, regardless of the views that are being expressed.
	Every member of the public has the right to expect that his or her Member of Parliament will behave with civility, in the best traditions of fairness, with the highest level of probity and with integrity. Their views are influenced by our behaviour here and if we are to maintain and increase public support, we should bear in mind that how we behave in this House has a substantial bearing on the levels of confidence and trust which others have in us.

Debate on the Address
	 — 
	[First Day]

George Howarth: And I meant it, Mr. Speaker.
	I am filled with pride at being given the opportunity to move the Address, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). It is a great honour both personally and for my constituency.
	I was elected to the House in a by-election 18 years ago, almost to the day, and I am especially proud that my constituency is such a diverse and interesting place to represent. At the southern end of the constituency, in Knowsley, we have the estate of the Earl of Derby, which incorporates Knowsley safari park, which is, of course, particularly noted for its lions. On one occasion, residents living in the vicinity were asked what would happen if one of the lions escaped. "The lions will have to look after themselves, like the rest of us," they were told.
	The heart of the constituency is the town of Kirkby, built mainly in the 1960s to accommodate people displaced by slum clearance programmes in Liverpool. I have had a lifelong love affair with the town since I was a student at the technical college many years ago. Kirkby went through hard times in the 1980s and early 1990s, with unemployment levels as high as 60 per cent. in some parts. However, I am pleased to say that thanks to the sound economic stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.] Wait for it. The town is now recovering dramatically.
	I also have the eastern corner of Sefton in my constituency, which includes Maghull, Lydiate, Melling and Aintree. Aintree, of course, is the home of the grand national, and we are particularly proud that we host such a world famous event.
	The House may be surprised to learn that a large part of my constituency is rural farmland. At a recent meeting in one village, I was asked what was going to happen about the problem of foxes causing a nuisance. I pointed out that, despite the Hunting Bill, in such circumstances landowners would still be able to shoot them. Another constituent then rose to his feet and said, "Well, that's fine for the foxes, but does it apply to the Jacksons?"
	My constituency is not in Liverpool, but most of us who live there are of Liverpool and happily answer to the description, "scousers". As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) will no doubt confirm, if any Conservative Members have an issue with that, they should be warned: the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and I have a little arrangement.
	My constituency, in its various shapes and sizes, has in the past been represented by William Ewart Gladstone, between 1865 and 1868—[Interruption.] It was a long time ago. It was represented for many years by Harold Wilson, and my immediate predecessor was Robert Kilroy-Silk, who is now a Member of the European Parliament. They are all difficult acts to follow. Until I stood in the by-election following the resignation of the matinee idol, Robert Kilroy-Silk, I had blithely gone through life thinking that I bore a strong physical resemblance to Robert Redford. It came as quite a surprise to be described in one national newspaper as
	"all nose, bone and moustache looking for all the world like a first world war Tommy about to go over the top at the Somme."
	For a while, I consoled myself with the thought that I was just not photogenic. However, when I suggested that theory to my wife, she would not hear of it. "No, dear", she said, "you just look like that." [Laughter.]
	I am afraid that I have no direct experience of Gladstone, but when I first became politically active as a teenager, our local MP was Harold Wilson. In 1966, as a reward for putting thousands of leaflets through letterboxes, I was invited to Harold's eve-of-poll public meeting, which was held in what was then called Prescot grammar school. At the end of the speech, as was his custom, Harold took questions in threes, which basically meant that if he did not like the sound of one he could answer the other two and hope that the third was forgotten. The first questioner asked, appropriately, about grammar schools. "Mr Wilson", he said, "you said in 1964 that they would abolish the grammar schools over your dead body, and now it's in your manifesto to abolish them. What have you got to say about that?" Harold duly answered the second and third questions, conveniently overlooking the first. A little later, the chairman—I never quite knew whether out of malice or myopia—called the same man again. He repeated the question, by this time purple with indignation. Harold stood up, took a long draw on his pipe and replied, "Friend, you're showing a morbid curiosity with in my corpse."
	It is a particular pleasure to move this Address since so much of it is relevant to the issues that concern my constituents. Whatever divisions exist in my constituency, as elsewhere, about Iraq, we are as conscious and anxious as like everybody else about the security threats that we face in the modern world. We know that one grievance that fuels terrorism is the fate of the Palestinians in the middle east. My constituents will fully support my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in their efforts to work with other world leaders to bring about a just settlement to that corrosive problem. As a former Northern Ireland Minister, I know at first hand the focus and skill that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at his command, and I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in his efforts to bring peace and stability to the middle east.
	One of the major concerns in my constituency is law and order, and my constituents will welcome the measures in the Address to tackle crime, disorder and organised crime. As a former Home Office Minister, I know that a great deal has already been done to give the police and other law enforcement agencies the power and resources that they need, but that remains work in progress. I certainly welcome the proposed introduction of identity cards, which I strongly believe will help in the fight against crime and in combating terrorism.My constituents are impatient that those who are intent on creating havoc and misery in our communities should be either brought under control or, if that fails, removed from the community altogether. We have already lost patience with those in the courts and elsewhere who confuse human rights and civil liberties with having a licence to deal in drugs and keep hold of the profits. Such behaviour rightly causes outrage in decent, hard-working people.
	Another commitment that my constituents will welcome is the further reform of the national health service to offer more information, power and choice to patients, with equal access for all, free at the point of delivery. I know that when my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Milburn) utter the words "reform" and "choice", nervous twitches break out on the Labour Benches. I would simply point out, however, that it is perfectly reasonable in the 21st century for people to have some choice and control over how services are provided. Surely it is a measure of progress that people now expect services to be delivered to suit the way that they live their lives, and it is fitting that a Government of the left should adopt such a progressive approach.
	My constituents are particularly looking forward to improved public transport, including the Railways Bill, which I hope will help Merseyrail to extend the electrification of our local network. The proposed tram link between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre will also be of enormous benefit to the travelling public. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is sitting next to me, and we are both also looking forward to the second Mersey crossing.
	Many of my constituents work in hazardous occupations, and some have died or been injured as a result of inadequate health and safety in the workplace. Tragically, members of the public have also lost their lives or been injured as a result of the negligence of those responsible for their safety. For those reasons, I am very pleased that the Government are to introduce a Bill to create a new offence of corporate manslaughter.
	Road safety is an important issue, and I am particularly pleased that the Road Safety Bill has been proposed in the Queen's Speech, especially as my daughter, Siân, passed her driving test this morning. I shall leave hon. Members to imagine what that could mean.
	I hope that as much as possible of this ambitious programme can be put in place before the general election. For my own part, I am anxious to avoid repeating a mistake I made in a previous general election campaign. On the Saturday evening before polling day, I unwisely agreed to go on a tour of the many social clubs in my constituency, arriving at the piano bar of the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffalos club as my last port of call. I was asked by the club compere to take the stage and sing a song. Emboldened by several pints of bitter, I thought, "Why not?" Unaccountably, I decided to give a rendition of "Some Enchanted Evening". Having managed to get through it, I proudly headed to the back of the club where my agent, Mike Murphy, was standing. I approached him, poised to receive his admiring congratulations. "That," he said, "was worth a thousand votes—but not for you." On the basis of the measures in this Address, however, I confidently expect to have a better song to sing at the next general election, and I warmly commend the Queen's Speech to the House.

Meg Munn: It is a great honour to second the Queen's Speech, although that was not the only emotion that I felt when I was asked to do it. Equal amounts of honour and trepidation came over me after I said yes, which I tend to say too readily—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] My confidence did not increase when I told my husband. After a shocked pause, he said, "But you have to be funny." With such support, how can I fail?
	When I received the pager message to ring the Chief Whip, I was just about to give a speech in place of the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, who was otherwise tied up. I have advised her to keep her hands in her pockets in future.
	I am very pleased to follow my hon. Friend the   Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has given such service to the House and to his constituents. I pay tribute to his work as a Northern Ireland Minister in pursuing the peace process. However, I most admire him for managing, despite his misfortune of living on the wrong side of the Pennines, to make something of his life.
	I share one important bond with my hon. Friend: our involvement with the co-operative movement. The co-operative movement has long been important to the people of his region and mine. My noble Friend Lord Graham often jokes,
	"it's not very co-operative, nor does it move a lot".
	In recent years, however, it has had an upswing in its fortunes, with ideas of co-operation and mutuality enjoying a renaissance. I have been delighted to support three private Member's Bills in the House to modernise co-operatives and social enterprises, and I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) for their hard work in that regard.
	As much as it is an honour for me and my constituents to be asked to second the Queen's Speech, the greatest privilege is to be a Member of the House, and for me, to represent the area where I grew up. I am sure that all Members will know that Sheffield, like Rome, is built on seven hills. It also has five rivers, and gets its name from the Sheaf, which forms one boundary of my constituency
	I feel particularly fortunate to be the MP at a time of transformation for Heeley. Unemployment is down, school achievement is up, many children now go to new or refurbished schools, and there are more improvements to come. It is always a pleasure to meet children in the constituency and to get a glimpse of their view of the world. However, I am not always prepared for some of their questions. One year, St. Peter's Brownies troop were given the task of designing my Christmas card. After judging the drawings, and handing out the prizes, I chatted to them. Katie, aged 7, came up to me and with great seriousness asked, "Were you in the Houses of Parliament when Guy Fawkes tried to blow it up?" [Laughter.]
	It has been a pleasure for me to work with local community groups, business organisations and faith groups, including churches and my local mosque. They provide support through educational opportunities and social activities. My constituents benefit from living in a thriving city, with its two universities, theatres, cinemas and modern tram system. South Yorkshire has been one of the poorest regions in the European Union, but with the support of objective 1 funding, there is substantial progress. I urge the Government to ensure that economically disadvantaged regions continue to receive extra help.
	Before coming to Westminster, I had little idea of the day-to-day life of an MP. It was drilled into me that whatever else an MP does, they are expected to vote. To miss a vote is a dreadful thing. The punishment for such a heinous crime is cruel and unusual, and at the discretion of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Glen—sorry, Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy)—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] However else I organised my day, it was my responsibility to arrange things so that I got to the vote in the magical eight minutes allowed.
	Various ways to fill my day poured in. I was asked several times whether I wanted to join the tap dancers. I wondered whether it was code for something interesting, so I decided to find out. Intrigued, I ventured to my first class and discovered great company, exhilarating exercise and a new way to relax. After the first lesson, I entered the shower in a relaxed frame of mind. I turned on the water and then—horror of horrors—the Division bell rang. There was a great kafuffle as tap dancers grabbed their clothing—I was the only new member; the others seemed remarkably practised. Thinking of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen and what might happen if I missed the vote, I lunged out of the shower, grabbed a towel and discovered to my horror that my hon. Friend—

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) had grabbed my locker key and disappeared. I was left with a stark choice—my reputation for modesty and decorum or my reputation with Tommy. He lost—I followed the advice of the great Nye Bevan and decided not to go naked into the Chamber.
	I persevered with the tap group, known as the "Division Belles", particularly enjoying our public offering at the annual charity event, where the professional presentation of many hon. Members present is a wonder to behold. Tap dancing does not seem to be to the detriment of a parliamentary career, with two Home Office Ministers and the chair of the parliamentary Labour party being part of the troupe. Sadly, the most talented tap dancer in the House is not a Division Belle—I wonder whether it is fear for his reputation that keeps the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), away.
	I am aware that one of my faults is getting involved in too many things. So far, that has led to my playing hockey, taking part in the tug of war, running, cycling and becoming a founder member of the women's parliamentary football team, which sadly still only has sufficient players for five-a-side. I seem to get selected for everything, except for the tennis team—my greatest love—where our captain, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), has failed to select me.
	I wonder whether that is because of the company that I keep at practice sessions. The most regular attendees are the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). The right hon. Member for Bracknell is a forgiving gentleman—he seems to bear me no malice for casting a vote for his Labour opponent in 1983, when I briefly lived in his constituency. However, I wonder whether the Conservative party has a dress code, because on the tennis court he always has his shirt firmly tucked into his shorts—at least.
	I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in expressing appreciation for the service of the hon. Member for New Forest, West in Iraq—I shall resist the temptation to move from his gallant service with the forces to discuss his service on the tennis court. I was delighted for him when he was appointed to his current post, although as one of my more unkind hon. Friends said, "It seems somewhat extraordinary that a vampire should choose a werewolf as his PPS." Personally, I have always found the right hon. Member for Bracknell and the hon. Member for New Forest, West perfectly charming.
	I know that the Leader of the Opposition appears in daylight, because we met recently outside our offices during a fire alarm. He has conducted extensive research in his quest for interesting information—nay gossip—about me, even sending a young emissary into the wilds of Yorkshire this weekend. Unfortunately for him, his emissary came across a member of my staff, whom he tried to quiz. The member of my staff replied in true Yorkshire style, "You're getting nowt out of me!"
	Before I arrived at the House, I was described by one commentator as
	"strapping with a pleasant toothy smile".
	I do not know how familiar you are, Mr. Speaker, with some of the websites that provide information on MPs, but a quick look at one profile of me reveals that
	"This MP hardly ever rebels."
	I think that that is what The Times meant in calling me an "arch Blairite loyalist". I am not sure about "arch", but as a Blairite loyalist I welcome the range of measures in the Queen's Speech, particularly proposals for financial support for those in education aged between 16 and 19. Sheffield has an excellent education strategy for that age group, and when it is coupled with that additional financial support, more young people than ever before will be in education or training.
	I have had many letters praising the success of the fireworks legislation, and my constituents will be pleased to hear that the Government intend to legislate further on antisocial behaviour. My right hon. Friend—and fellow Sheffielder—the Home Secretary has rightly identified the importance to many of our constituents of tackling antisocial behaviour and its appalling impact on communities. Many constituents also write to me about their concerns regarding Africa and the need for trade justice for the developing world. They will be pleased to hear of the Government's commitments as Britain takes on presidency of the G8 and of the EU. Too little progress has been made internationally on the millennium development goals. Tackling poverty and HIV/AIDS in Africa needs to be a priority for the developed world.
	Renewed effort on the middle east peace process will be widely welcomed. Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live free from the fear of violence and from the dreadful poverty that blights too many lives. Identifying how a two-state solution can be achieved could not be more important.
	Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I second the Queen's Speech.

Jonathan R Shaw: In my area, unemployment rose by some 20 per cent. when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a Minister. He has told us that he will sack Ministers who do not deliver. How would he react to his employment Ministers putting a million on to the jobless figures? Would he sack them?

Michael Howard: What the hon. Gentleman has not taken into account and has conveniently forgotten is that unemployment started falling under the last Conservative Government in 1992. Perhaps he can explain to his constituents why 8 million people—more than in 1997—are economically inactive in the country today and why a million young people are still neither in work nor in training. I hope that he has a good explanation to give to his own constituents when he deals with those matters.
	People are paying a lot more in tax and they are not getting value for money. Hard-working families are paying the equivalent of £5,000 a year more in tax, but what do they have to show for it? A million patients are still on NHS waiting lists, a million children are still playing truant from school and there are a million violent crimes. It is no wonder that hard-working families feel hard pressed and hard done by under this Government. People are fed up with talk and want action.

Michael Howard: I can understand why Labour Members do not want to be reminded of what the Prime Minister said 10 years ago. At that time, he said that it was important to stress the importance of discipline in schools, but what has happened? Today, a teacher is assaulted every seven minutes in our schools. The Education Secretary has told schools that they will have to admit unruly pupils, even if they do not want to.
	Two years ago, the Government launched their flagship education policy, "The Power to Innovate". That was designed to give schools more freedom. There are 21,000 state schools in Britain, but just five have been granted that freedom.
	The same year, the Government launched earned autonomy and the Education Secretary promised that he would promote it energetically. Not a single school has got earned autonomy. When people hear the Prime Minister talking today about school freedom and choice and about discipline in the classroom, they will see it for what it is—it is all talk. Parents want action. They want action to ensure that their children can actually learn when they go to school and are not disrupted by the unruly behaviour of others. That is why we would give head teachers the final say over expulsions.
	Patients want us to clean up our hospitals. The Prime Minister talks about security, but the security that patients want is the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they will not catch a new infection when they go into hospital. Three years ago, the Government promised that every patient had the right to expect that their local hospital meets the highest standards of cleanliness. We have had 21 health Bills and 22 MRSA initiatives, yet at least 5,000 people still die every year from infections picked up in hospital. Doctors and nurses still do not have the power to shut wards that they know are infected.
	We will have almost a dozen Home Office Bills in this Session. After seven and a half years, with just five months to go before an election, why should people believe now that the Government are suddenly going to fix crime? The Prime Minister promised cash point fines for yobs—it never happened. He said they would dock housing benefit from antisocial tenants—it never happened. Night courts were closed after six months. As for being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, his Government are letting prisoners out early and have downgraded punishment for shoplifting. Is it any wonder that crime is out of control?
	Crime figures are the measure of whether the Government are succeeding or failing; that is what the Prime Minister says. When he criticises our record, he always uses the recorded crime figures. He did it again last week. Recorded crime fell by 18 per cent. when I was Home Secretary. Under his Government, it has gone up by 16 per cent. On his own criterion, he has failed where I succeeded.
	This weekend, we were told that drugs would be the Government's priority. We have heard that before, too. In 1999, the Prime Minister promised new action to break the link between drugs and crime. It was all talk. His Government have downgraded cannabis. According to the Met, more people are being caught with cannabis but fewer are being arrested. Perhaps that is what he meant by breaking the link between drugs and crime. What does it say about the Prime Minister's priorities that he talks about protecting children from sweets and crisps but will not keep them safe from cannabis?
	Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police Federation said that, even without arrest, there is still plenty of paperwork. People do not want the police filling in forms. They want them out on streets, challenging and confronting every kind of criminal behaviour, from graffiti to drug dealing. That is why we will take action to cut police paperwork by scrapping the politically correct form that officers have to fill in every time they stop someone. We will take action on drugs. We need to offer every youngster on hard drugs the chance of residential rehab. All the evidence shows that that is what works best. That is what we will deliver.
	The Prime Minister talks about our nation's security. It is one of his many priorities, just as it was 10 years ago when he said:
	"Today's politics is about the search for security in a changing world."
	How can we guarantee security when we do not even know who is coming into our country? There are 250,000 failed asylum seekers somewhere in Britain. So much for the Prime Minister's promise of a fairer, faster and firmer asylum system. He has had seven and a half years, but he has not even got to first base on that. How can he keep a straight face talking about security when he is going to cut our armed forces and disband historic regiments, including the Black Watch?
	People can see through the talk. They are fed up with it. They want action to reinstate 24-hour security at our ports. They want action to tighten up on work permits, and to let Parliament decide how many people can come into Britain every year. The Prime Minister knows it. That is why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the Minister paid £130,000 a year to write Labour's manifesto—was busy briefing The Sunday Times that:
	"the Tories have won a clear advantage by promising an annual limit for the number of asylum seekers and legal immigrants. Tony Blair is 'sympathetic'".
	But we know that the Labour Government will never deliver because they are all talk, all spin and no substance. They never learn and never change.
	The truth is that the Government have over-hyped everything. "Over-hyped" is not my word, but that of the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). There is no one more addicted to over-hyping than the Home Secretary. Just last Sunday, he was talking about the measures needed to protect us from terrorism. He went through them in detail—juryless trials, wire-tap evidence, yet more police powers to pre-empt terrorists. But there is no legislation in the Gracious Speech to provide them. So we have a Government who admit that the law needs to be changed, but not yet; a Government who say that protection from terrorism is a priority, but not yet; a Government who say, "We will take action to keep you safe", but not yet. There can be no better example of the Government's pre-occupation with talk, spin and newspaper headlines. What the people of this country want is a Government who make their lives better month by month, year by year.
	We will promise only what we know we can deliver. We will ensure that children can actually learn when they go to school by giving head teachers the power to expel unruly pupils. We will give patients the right to   choose where they are treated and doctors the power to close wards when they are infected with a superbug. We will cut police paperwork so that the police can get out on the streets and cut crime. We will get a grip on immigration and asylum by giving priority to genuine refugees and people who have a real contribution to make to our country. And yes, we will give pensioners the security that they deserve in their old age by restoring the link between the basic state pension and average earnings. That is what this legislative programme should have been about—the people's priorities of school discipline, cleaner hospitals, more police, lower taxes and controlled immigration. Today, after seven years of this Government and five months before the general election, all that we get from them is more rhetoric, more promises and more talk. But this Government will never turn talk into action so it is time for a Government who will.

Tony Blair: I do not believe that police time will be diverted into that, as the Home Secretary made it clear at the weekend, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that 12,500 extra police officers—record numbers of police officers and community support officers—is something that the Government can be very proud of.

Tony Blair: The devolved services are a matter for the Scottish Executive under devolution legislation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, it would be our intention here to ensure that when they are compulsory—obviously, that has to go through a legislative process in the House—they are essential in order to access services.
	As well as a strong domestic policy agenda, the Queen's Speech also commits us to complete the task of bringing democracy to Iraq. I pay a special tribute to the heroism, courage and commitment of British soldiers serving in Iraq. They are a huge source of pride for the country. The Queen's Speech also places at the centre of our foreign policy the reinvigoration of the middle east peace process. This is no longer just about security for the middle east. It affects Britain's security and that of the wider world.
	Our G8 priorities—Africa and climate change—will form the other principal part of the Government's foreign policy and I hope, as priorities for the G8, will gain support across the House and the country. The Queen's Speech, therefore, builds on a strong economic and foreign policy record, investment in public services and the success of the antisocial behaviour legislation. Its policies are radical, but realistic and costed.
	I turn now to the alternative Queen's Speech issued by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. It is just over a year since he became leader of the official Opposition—not a long time in most jobs, except perhaps that of the Tory leader. I thought it might help the House if we looked back at what he promised when he stood for the post.
	"I will lead this party from its centre",
	he vowed.
	"We will never place our electoral self-interest before the good of the country",
	he declared.
	"No narrow partisan opportunism for us",
	he promised. He went on to pledge:
	"Rigorous honesty, measured criticism, realistic alternatives."
	Let us examine that in relation to the tax and spending policies that the Conservative party issued in the past few weeks. Last week, the Conservatives published their tax plans. They tantalised us with billions of pounds of options on tax cuts on everything from inheritance tax—as ever, appealing to the top 5 per cent. of the population—to the top rate of tax. That is up to £6 billion of tax cuts or more. But then we read the small print of the document and, tucked away at the end is this sentence:
	"The presence of a particular option in this paper does not constitute any guarantee or promise that the particular option in question will form any part of any Conservative budget."
	We are introducing a consumer credit Bill to protect people from sharp practice. I think we will have to amend it to cover Tory policy.
	Then the shadow Chancellor was at it again, promising five options on cuts in stamp duty. Great, we thought. Then we read the small print:
	"The presence of a particular option does not constitute any guarantee or promise that it will form any part of any Conservative budget."
	So there we have it. It is not a real tax cut; it is a fantasy tax cut and a fraud because it is sold as a reality.
	Are the Conservatives any more credible on spending? One year ago, the shadow Chancellor said that if elected, he would freeze departmental budgets in cash terms except for the national health service and schools. That is £20 billion of cuts in vital spending. However, while he says that he will stop spending, the other shadows have started fantasy spending. They have promised more spending on defence, prison, rehab places, the elderly, schools, school nurses, pensions, transport, higher education and the national health service. But they have run into a bit of a problem. They have sort of promised tax cuts; they have sort of promised spending; and they have sort of realised that it does not add up. So now they promise fantasy savings.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that no one had challenged his figures on savings. Let me start the challenge—a challenge that he is going to hear from now until election day. The Tories say that they will spend £2.9 billion more on defence than Labour, and that they will get £1.6 billion of that from defence savings. When one looks at the detail, one finds that it is £900 million from what they call logistics and procurement, but unfortunately we are already going to save £1 billion from logistics and procurement; in other words, there are no savings of £900 million for the Tories to make. The other saving that the shadow Chancellor says he will get is from the new deal. He says that if he scraps the new deal he will save money, but the new deal is cutting unemployment and saving money for us.
	The fantasy does not end there. [Interruption.] No, there is more. The Tories say that they will spend £1.3 billion extra on police because they will cut investment in immigration and asylum by processing all asylum claims abroad. I have been dying to ask them this all the way through: where is this place that is going to process all the asylum claims? Where is the country that is going to say, "Yes, I'd like your failed asylum seekers"?
	We start with fantasy tax cuts; we then have fantasy spending; we then have fantasy savings and now we have a fantasy country. Then, of course, we have the Tory policy on Europe. We remember the words about leading from the centre; back comes the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) into the shadow Cabinet. The Tories have now ditched 30 years of policy on engagement with Europe in favour of renegotiation, a policy that even Margaret Thatcher would not entertain. We know that the right hon. Gentleman has boasted that the unilateral renegotiation of our membership of the European Union is "easy".

Charles Kennedy: No. I have been in the House longer than the hon. Gentleman, but not that long.
	The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East recounted Harold Wilson's ability to deal with the awkward question. My favourite in that department is the time when The Daily Express was characteristically giving the Labour Government a hard time of it and Jean Rook, the self-styled first lady of Fleet street, was sent round to No. 10 for an early-evening dram with Harold. He poured her a drink, got the pipe out and said, "In your own time, Jean." She said, "Prime Minister Wilson, is it true that whenever you are asked a tough, awkward or difficult question that puts you on the spot and you don't want to answer, you always respond by means of a question?" Wilson thought, took the pipe out of his mouth and said, "Now who told you that, Jean?"
	As these exchanges will not be televised until after the watershed, I can say that we found the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) a fascinating lifting of the veil over the workings of the Labour Whips Office. If that is not an incentive for many of us to aspire all the more to the trappings of office, I do not know what is.
	It is a sad task to pay tribute to a colleague who, alas, is no longer with us. He was a friend and somebody I very much liked and respected—a good European and a good internationalist, the late Jim Marshall. We shall miss him a lot, not least given the debates that have been so predominant since his passing, and the many European debates that lie ahead, to which the Queen's Speech refers. In that context, I know that Jim's successor in Leicester, South is anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon. My parliamentary colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Gill), may hope to contribute to this debate in his maiden speech.
	The other two parliamentary by-elections that have taken place since the previous Queen's Speech were thankfully not due to bereavement. Terry Davis is going to the Council of Europe, where we wish him well in his new office and responsibilities. Peter Mandelson has moved on to the EU Commission, and we wish him well also. In respect of a Queen's Speech that is dominated by Home Office concerns and law and order, both the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has, alas, left the Chamber, and the constabulary generally would describe Peter's departure, given his weekend interviews and subsequent comments, as a classic case of "He's gone to Europe, but by God, he has not gone quietly." It does not look as though he will remain quiet on these matters either, which will keep many of us outside the Labour party entertained, even given his further distance.
	The Clerks in the Table Office have advised us that an amendment that we have tabled, but which will be moved more formally next week, is in order. I shall allude to it, if I may, by way of a description for the House, since it will not appear in printed form until tomorrow. Our reasoned amendment refers to the fact—it is unusual in this respect—that the Gracious Speech
	"contains no commitment to introduce legislation to clarify the responsibility of the Prime Minister to Parliament, particularly in relation to prerogative powers and the role of Parliament in matters of war and peace, and calls for a special Select Committee of the House to consider these matters."
	I am not revisiting all the background and arguments that lie behind this issue, which we have been over many times before. We want the House to have an opportunity to vote, as it will next week, for a Select Committee to look at that matter.
	The reason for making this somewhat unusual move and for drawing attention to it at the outset is that that vote will be a genuine opportunity to invite cross-party support in the Division Lobby next week because of the remarkable series of Parliament-orientated events arising from Iraq that have coloured our proceedings regarding the role of Prime Minister and the relationship to the House of Commons. From within the House, there have been the reports from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Select Committee on Public Accounts and the National Audit Office. We have also had Hutton and Butler, and more recently, the Iraq survey group.
	On Butler and his highlighting of the methods of prime ministerial and Cabinet working and the review that is now in place, to which the Prime Minister referred at the beginning the speech that he made when we debated Butler before the summer recess—it deals with working practices and how they could be improved or altered, and their role in the procedures and Committees of this House—we feel that a genuine issue arises here that Parliament would want to look at for its own good. That is the nub of the reasoned and considered view that we are putting on to the Order Paper, and I hope that it will find broad-based sympathy and can be taken further in this new Session of Parliament, however long it runs.
	The Prime Minister referred in his opening remarks to the continuing heroic work that is being carried out by the British armed forces in Iraq. We certainly pay tribute to that. We have all expressed very grave concerns about some of the images that we have seen coming out of Falluja and about the reality behind them. Perhaps tomorrow's instalment of the Queen's Speech debate will be a more appropriate occasion for more detailed exchanges on these matters. With regard to the announcement of the 30 January scheduled elections, which is welcome, we would like to see to what extent the conduct of what happened in Falluja and the implications that flow from it will be assessed in terms of the processing and moving forward of that democratic ballot.
	The Queen's Speech contains slightly odd new Labour wording referring to and introducing an important component of the speech this year. It states:
	"My Government recognises that we live in a time of global uncertainty with an increased threat from international terrorism and organised crime."
	It goes on to say—this is the bit that reads oddly—
	"Measures to extend opportunity will be accompanied by legislation to increase security for all."
	I am not sure whose opportunity the drafters of that sentence had in mind. It reads like one of those—we can all suffer from them—that has been through too many committees and has lost the je ne sais quoi that was sought at the outset. Nevertheless, as we have seen since yesterday evening's reports of the thwarted attack planned against Canary wharf, this is a serious issue that requires a serious response. We must always bear it in mind that the security services have to get it right every time, but the terrorist has only to get lucky once. That has to be weighed in the balance every time.
	I do not share the scepticism that some have expressed at the coincidence of that report's coming into the public domain at the same time as today's Queen's Speech. However, it is interesting to note that, because of all that has gone before, the instinctive response of many members of the public to what the Government tell them about such matters is somewhat sceptical, to say the least. In this case, I regret that, because I do not, for a whole variety of reasons, believe that the Government orchestrated this in any way. The public response is indicative of the problem that will underlie many of the debates on such fundamental matters of life and death that will take place on the Queen's Speech and subsequently, presumably, into a general election.
	The real danger is that terrorism and security measures are being conflated in the public's mind with issues of domestic crime and disorder. Indeed, there are those who for their own, rather disreputable ends would be only too eager and happy for asylum and immigration to be mixed into that elixir as well. As we know, asylum and immigration are themselves distinct issues that get conflated, but when they are poured with domestic law and order issues into the turmoil that can be created in the public's mind by those with an agenda of their own involving international insecurities, the debate can become very febrile and damaging for the fabric of society as a whole. Those of us in Parliament, as well as the political combatants if the debate plays into a general election, must to try to keep above those arguments and to resist such temptations.
	I want to explain the Liberal Democrats' approach, in terms of broad principle, to the Queen's Speech, with the proviso that we will not yet see certain measures relating to matters that are still before the courts—for example, the continuing appeals concerning the Belmarsh detainees, the outcome of which will have a significant and fundamental influence on what the Home Secretary may decide into next year.
	We will make the case, vigorously and on several fronts, against the introduction of identity cards. First, there is the question of cost. If asked, the public would say that they would prefer the £3 billion that has been allocated to be given to the priority of ensuring more visible policing on the streets of their communities.
	Secondly, as we heard during last week's exchanges in Prime Minister's questions, terrible complexities have recently been experienced in the computerisation of the Child Support Agency. For that, in days gone by, read the Department of Health and the Inland Revenue—and so it goes on. The public have little confidence—and we do not share the Government's confidence—that a computerisation of the complexity that would be required for a national ID system could, if it bears any relation to the haphazard and hellish track record on these matters, in any sense be relied on.
	Thirdly, of course, we must remember that identity cards did not prevent depraved individuals from carrying out terrorist assaults in Madrid and New York. We should not, therefore, allow the argument to develop that ID cards would be a fundamental failsafe against such an attack, particularly a suicide attack. A further issue is that, even according to the Home Secretary's own interpretation, these proposals would not kick in during this Session of Parliament, even if it were to run for its entire five-year length.
	Those are the practical and principled objections that we shall make to the introduction of identity cards on a voluntary, then a compulsory, basis. We shall work not only with our own party colleagues but, I hope, with colleagues in other political parties in this House and the House of Lords, and I still hope that we shall be able to thwart the proposed legislation.

Charles Kennedy: I have not heard Lord Steel sound off on this specific issue, I must admit. However, I find that I can always count on his moral support, as I can on that of all former leaders of the Liberal Democrats.
	We continue to oppose detention without trial. In a liberal democrat society—in the non-party sense of the term—it surely cannot be acceptable. We acknowledge, however, that there is a real problem in regard to at least some of the detainees at Belmarsh. This matter is, of course, subject to the decision of the courts. It must be preferable to secure a conviction, when it is legitimate to do so, and that might involve the allowing of information obtained by phone-tapping to be given in court, if it is a relevant and essential piece of information. It is better to arrive at such a conviction than to leave someone languishing in a legal no man's land, as is happening at the moment. Depending on the detail that will be provided in due course, that proposal will have to be looked at.
	The Prime Minister has also made much of a matter that we have been very straightforward about, which is that we, as a party, have had to reassess our attitude to antisocial behaviour orders. He was quite right to say that we were critical of them in the past, and that we warned him about some of their implications. We have been proved right about some of those implications, but we have to be realistic. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) has been consulting not only the many Liberal Democrat-run local authorities that have had recourse to the orders and found them useful, but authorities of other political persuasions as well.
	Where a developed view is concerned, I listened to the Leader of the House's interview on this issue on Sunday night—[Interruption.] I am sure that other listening posts within the Labour hierarchy follow very carefully what he says when he gives his later-night weekend interviews. If, after a scheme comes into operation, judgments must be formed on its practicality and changes must be made in the stance, we should be upfront about that. That is the kind of rational discussion that the public want to see. In being straightforward in saying that, I hope that there will be a degree more straightforwardness in the response from the Government in acknowledging that to be the case.
	Let us consider some of the issues that we highlighted at the time. For example, if we put antisocial behaviour orders in the context of wider criminality in this country at the moment, we see that the prison population has risen by 20 per cent. since the Government came to power. Before 1997, however, the Labour party in opposition argued that prisons were already overcrowded. Perhaps that is tough on crime, but it is not tough on the causes of crime. With that increase, re-offending rates are now running at 60 per cent., and among 18 to 21-year-olds, at more than 70 per cent. "Tough on crime" is the headline, but we need to consider the facts that lie below it.
	Equally, the Government are tough on the implementation of ASBOs. It must be acknowledged, however, that the ASBOs that have been administered have a 36 per cent. failure rate. What does "failure rate" mean? It means that the people made subject to ASBOs who break them—the failures—end up in detention. If we consider the detention figures, we see the effect that that has on those individuals becoming re-offenders. It would be better if we could get to those people—this is our whole argument, on which we differ from the Government—before the legal intervention takes place. Then, if something were to go wrong, we would have a better prospect of getting them back on the straight and narrow, before they reach the point of incarceration when they are much further down the track and much more difficult to reclaim as a fully paid-up, worthwhile member of society. That is a serious issue and it should be pursued.
	The third context in which the issue should be placed is the need, which I mentioned, for more police and community police officers generally. It remains ridiculous that 10 per cent. of our active police on shift at any given time are acting as bureaucrats and are not out in the streets and communities. The vital need to reduce the bureaucratic imposition on the police continues.
	We support the Government on their establishment of a Serious Organised Crime Agency. It must make sense to bring those functions together in a more coherent one-stop-shop, as it were. We will scrutinise that, but we want to give it our broad support.
	What I find most perverse, almost, about this Queen's Speech is that the Prime Minister, before he became Prime Minister, and in his earlier years in office, would often wax lyrical and with great reflection and consideration on the fact that the 20th century had been too dominated by the conservatives, and that the progressives—be they those in his party, my party or elements of the Conservative party—should try to capture the 21st century. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have delivered speeches in which they have alluded to the fact that Liberal thinking has influenced and led to the enactment of big improvements in social measures and liberties by Labour Governments. However, what has happened today? Sadly, the Prime Minister's analysis is being steadily eclipsed by his Home Secretary's approach. In a short space of time, the Home Secretary has managed to do something that took the neo-conservatives in the United States 20 years, if not more. In aping them, he has managed to turn "liberal" into a derogatory term of abuse in this country's political dialogue. I am not talking about the party political term "Liberal"; I am talking about people who consider themselves liberal, whatever their party political allegiance.
	That is totally out of kilter with British society today—this is reflected in the legislation that we have passed on same-sex relationships and other matters—so much of which is instinctively liberal in its attitudes and aspirations. The Home Secretary seems to have lost that plot or, indeed, seeks to undermine that welcome development.

Charles Kennedy: I would like to move on.
	As Members of Parliament, we have all heard from our constituents of horrific instances of maimings and deaths caused by road accidents. It is amazing that although we have road accident investigation bureaucracies that deal with rail, sea and air travel, no such bureaucracy exists for road travel, despite the fact that 10 people will be killed today on our roads. We read the terrible headlines about the recent appalling rail accident, yet fewer people were killed in that accident than were killed in each subsequent day on the roads.
	The proposals on corporate manslaughter are a step in the right direction, although when it comes to the detail the Government may have to revisit whether the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 would provide a more appropriate route to achieve their objective.
	I commented on the difficulties that can arise with computerisation. I hope that those difficulties will not arise during the integration of the Inland Revenue with Customs and Excise. However, problems that will have to be addressed include the interdiction powers of Customs and Excise, which have been seriously questioned in recent court rulings. We support the further moves that will be made on charities and the fact that the threat—the reality—of global warming features in the Queen's Speech. However, it is essential that among the many other things that the Prime Minister has to talk to the President of the United States about, he engages him positively in that agenda, not least through the presidency of the G8.
	There is one old friend that never goes away. Governments come and go, but this one never goes away: Europe—and it is here today. The Bill will be introduced, and I agree with the leader of the Conservative party that it would be more helpful to be able to flesh the subject out with a bit of detail, such as when Billy Bunter's postal order—any European referendum from this Government—is going to arrive. I hope that when we begin to get into the arguments in the House, the Government will stop making the mistake that they have been making all along, which is "defending the red lines" and speaking in Eurosceptical language to justify a pro-European move.
	John Major learned, to the decimation of his premiership, that the more we feed the monster, the more the monster wants, and eventually the monster will devour us. We watched that when the Conservatives were in government, week by week and month by month. This Government are not in that position yet, but they are kidding themselves if they think that they can turn public opinion around by presenting an argument about engaging with Europe in the vocabulary and the stance that people instinctively equate with the Eurosceptics, if not the downright anti-Europeans.
	Apparently, the Labour party has launched a new website, called "Proud to be British". In it, the party invites people to send messages to Labour to tell it why they are proud to be British. That is all very interesting. Perhaps Peter Mandelson will launch a website called "Pleased to be European". What most of us feel about being British is that we are proud to be British. Britain is a good country; it has a sense of fair play and of tolerance and the other virtues that I referred to earlier. But in addition to that, this country recognises that life is more complex and that decisions and difficulties that arise for Governments are more complicated than the easy tabloid analysis of life.
	The leader of the Conservatives said in a recent interview in The Guardian that he was "frustrated", and that
	"The government stole our language."
	I am glad to say that, from a Liberal Democrat standpoint, I have no such complaint about the Government. I am relieved to say that they show no temptation to steal our language or the philosophy that lies behind it. That will be the defining issue of the election in coming months. I am talking about an instinctively Liberal approach to the problems of the day at home and abroad, backed up by principles, as opposed to the instinctive reaction towards an illiberal partial solution to a much more complicated set of problems. The people of this country deserve that to be debated in a mature and rational way, and to have it put forward as a set of principles and a coherent view of Britain today and Britain's role in the world. I believe that, come the election, after the debates on the Queen's Speech and the legislation that follows, millions more of our fellow citizens will see that, instinctively and properly, that comes best and most sincerely from the Liberal Democrats.

Ken Purchase: First, I associate myself with the comments of the mover and seconder of the loyal address. My hon. Friends addressed the House with grace and wit, and created a sense of fun. Of course, we do not really come here to enjoy ourselves; anyone who wants to leave the Chamber now is free to do so, before I start boring hon. Members to death.
	This Queen's Speech contains many measures and, in common with what has been said in the newspapers over the past few days, I believe that it is a Queen's Speech for an election. I am reliably informed by the Sunday papers that it is based on the themes of security and opportunity. Those are certainly fine sentiments. We have talked about being British and I believe that we are entitled to expect any British Government to ensure that we can enjoy both security and opportunity. Those will be the themes of Labour's general election manifesto.
	It seems to me that not much changes. Once again, the election will be fought, won or lost on the economy and how people feel about their personal circumstances. It was interesting that the Gracious Speech opened with the sentence:
	"My Government will continue to pursue policies which entrench economic stability and promote growth and prosperity."
	Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear me say, as I have before, that at the heart of that economic strategy must be the continuing development of a manufacturing strategy. I believe that the Government have paid proper attention to that, but more needs to be done. I want to say sincerely, not just in passing, that the   Manufacturing Advisory Service, set up by the Government, is now working effectively across the nation. In my region of the west midlands especially, it is making an important contribution to companies and firms that wish to take on innovative processes, find new ways of doing things and share that information with the particular sector in which they are operating. There is no question but that the service has made a serious contribution to companies and I pay tribute to it.

Nicholas Winterton: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the jobs that will be lost in his constituency. He and I are as one in our support for manufacturing. Will he state clearly that the Government can play a major role in ensuring a satisfactory and prosperous future for manufacturing industry by minimising social and additional oncosts? In addition, should not the Government ensure that, where possible, contracts are placed with UK manufacturing concerns? In this connection, I am thinking particularly about textiles and the Ministry of Defence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such contracts should not be placed with dubious holding companies or shell companies that place manufacturing overseas?

Ken Purchase: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that I would be proud to make myself. He is absolutely right. One of my big disappointments is that my colleagues in this Labour Government have found it necessary to wait on legislation from Europe before improving the condition of workers in this country. In my view, a Labour Government should have been able to achieve that improvement on their own, but the improvement is being made, in the way that has been described, and I support that.
	I was talking about statistics. The fall in manufacturing employment is a serious problem, but output has risen by 5 per cent., which accounts for the improvement in productivity. Manufacturing investment continues to rise, and national surveys reveal a considerable degree of confidence in manufacturing circles. That confidence may not be as high as it was a couple of years ago, but it is still quite strong. We have lots to build on, and lots to do. I believe that the manufacturing base in this country still represents the most important engine for growth of any sector in the whole economy.
	I want so speak briefly about Wolverhampton and the surrounding area. As a recent survey by the local chamber of commerce set out, the paradox is that although sales and profits are rising, there is a lack of growth in real confidence. That is mainly explained by cash flow difficulties and falling revenues, but also by business investment itself showing some degree of strength.
	It is a mixed picture, but what is important is that the Government give as much support as they can. That means creating an environment in which companies feel able to take on new workers and to cope with the legislation that we rain down on them from time to time. In the majority of cases, I believe that we do that for perfectly good, sound, sensible reasons, but sometimes we may not give enough lead-in time before laws take effect, and that can create difficulties, particularly for smaller companies that simply cannot cope with some of the legislation that we ask them to deal with, particularly that relating to what my colleagues describe as the work-life balance.
	I have told one of my right hon. Friends about a company in my constituency that employs 20 women on hand presses and one or two smaller hydraulic presses. Two youngish men are employed as setters, and they also clean up the tools a bit and make sure everyone has enough work to do. There is one woman, in the office, doing the bits and pieces, and she has a little computer to get the payroll done and one or two other things. Finally, there is the owner of the company. It just so happens that both men—nice men, married men—have wives who are having babies. I really do not see how that company, which has 20 women to keep moving on the presses, can afford to have the two setters off at the same time on paternity leave. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will recognise that not all industry is made up of massive companies with enough resources to bring in different people at different times. In particular, the west midlands and the north-west have a plethora of smaller companies, sometimes with no more than half a dozen or 20 workers. If one person is out of that work force, it creates quite a difficulty. I hope that the Government will understand what is said by people such as me who have spent 20 or more years in industry and who try to understand the difficulties created when we introduce legislation. However laudable, sensible and honourable that legislation may seem—much of it can be embraced and worked through with a little flexibility and a little help—we must bear it in mind that it can create pretty serious difficulties.
	Our manufacturers are doing very well on exports. They are working damned hard. They are creating markets and going out to exploit the opportunities that arise. But we should tell the manufacturing sector how we see the future and that we know that that sector is where the real wealth of the country is produced. We should tell it that we want to give it all the help and support we possibly can.
	There are many measures in the Queen's Speech, and many will be addressed later in a far more detailed way than I can even attempt today. I shall confine myself to two or three more points. I feel particularly strongly about educational opportunity and allowing all individuals to realise their full potential. I shall absolutely resist going down one particular route on that; those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench are already smiling at me, but I will resist them, because that subject would not be helpful to what I want to say. My point is that my Front-Bench colleagues seem absolutely intent on change, change and more change, but I am not at all sure that all that change is compatible with improving opportunity or that people can continue to cope with it.
	I am absolutely convinced that the way to offer the widest possible opportunity for excellence in both academic work and practical and technical work is through the comprehensive education system. Where we can bring together on one site the skills, abilities, experience and dedication of our teachers, who can offer the wide curriculum that all children deserve an opportunity to take, we avoid the falseness of the intake into grammar schools. I have two good grammar schools in Wolverhampton, one for girls and a mixed one that is now private. They do excellent work; I have no quarrel with that. I want that excellence extended right across the secondary state sector. The only practical way to do that—it remains as true now as it was in 1966—is by bringing the skills that we need on to one site and to offer the curriculum choices that will, as it says in the Queen's Speech
	"allow individuals to achieve their full potential"
	for the benefit of this country.

Ken Purchase: I am afraid that the discrimination between the university sector and the further education sector has been with us for as long as I can recall. I remember the payments that were required when I went into further education. My employer met that cost. I believe that, with increasing levels of employment, employers will take more of the burden of fees where vocational opportunities are taken up. I hope that where employers have a commitment to the education and training of their employees, they will take on that entire burden. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is one that I hope that my Front-Bench team will take on board.
	We are extending financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds. In my constituency that makes a great deal of sense. We were one of the pilot areas, and there is no doubt that the scheme has improved the staying-on rate, which was frankly pretty abysmal in my constituency and in the west midlands. Kids were leaving school at 16 because that was the thing that they did. We have seen some changes. In the 1980s and 1990s employment opportunities were simply not there so it seemed to make sense to stay on at school. We have now consolidated that and there is no doubt that financial support—it went as high as £40 a week for full attendance and good results—has played an important role.
	I approve of the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It is right to recognise the importance of tackling serious crime, especially money laundering, which is at the root of the drugs trade and prostitution—things that worry me in my constituency. The police are working hard on it, but the problem goes underground and becomes taken as normal. I am afraid that the drugs trade, money laundering and prostitution are serious and growing problems. So I welcome the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, but I have to say that it sits pretty badly with the idea of introducing American money into casinos.
	In the 1960s, Harold Wilson refused George Raft entry into the country because of his connection with gambling and organised crime. George Raft was a good square tango dancer, by the way, so we were disappointed not to see his talents, but we were not disappointed that the Government had the common sense to say, "To these shores and no further." Even only a dozen of those casinos will present opportunities for laundering the money made from drugs and prostitution. We really do not want that, so I urge caution on my Front-Bench colleagues. Of course, measures on drug abuse featured in the Queen's Speech.
	I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) on the new offence of corporate manslaughter. I hope it does not take us as long to introduce those measures as it did to deal with fox hunting. I am sure that we will have learned some serious lessons from the way in which that debate was conducted.
	I have a few words to say about Europe. Yes, we are to have a referendum, but whatever else is true, the events of the past three or four years in the middle east, especially in Iraq, have shown us—have they not?—that the power of the Americans is increasing and is likely to continue to do so unless there is a countervailing balancing force. That cannot be achieved anywhere on the planet without a strong European Union committed to peace and prosperity, and prepared to ensure that the work of the United Nations is carried out effectively, efficiently and with economy, supported across the world.
	The UN may not be a perfect institution and it may need considerable improvement, but for the time being it is the best we have and we must, in everyone's interests, make it work. We shall best play our part not as a lone voice in the Security Council, but by combining with our European partners in a proper alliance. Initially, I voted against joining the then Common Market, because I honestly felt that the British Commonwealth offered a way forward in terms of trade, culture, understanding and international relations and that it was a force for real good; but when we rejected that, it seemed to me that the Commonwealth would make its own way, as it has done extremely successfully in many spheres.
	We are part of Europe, but whenever a treaty comes along, we say how terrible it is and how awful it will be and that we shall never be free again, yet in the end we sign. The current treaty will be no different. We may reject it in a referendum but, ultimately, we shall sign up to the European constitutional treaty. It will happen and we will be part of it, and better sooner than later. We should get on with that as quickly as possible.
	Finally, I want to speak about a constituency problem that many Members may share. I can see little reference in the Queen's Speech to local government, yet one of the major problems I hear about in my surgeries is the lack of new council housing. We have a shortage of council housing under a Labour Government. If more council houses were built in Wolverhampton, I could fill any number of them. I do not want to prejudice anything else that is being done, but we need a new approach and money for new building. Selling council houses does not particularly worry me, provided that we build more. If we adopt a policy—in the south, the midlands and the north—of ensuring a good supply of council housing, it will solve many, many of our problems.
	Overall, I commend the Queen's Speech. There is much that is good. It is an election manifesto writ small—for the moment—but I am quite sure that the twin themes will emerge as our major campaigning tools and I am confident that much of what we have heard today will ultimately make its way into legislation.

Michael Spicer: Yes, but that has not worked. Because taxes as a whole have been going up, there is a massive increase in the number of lower-paid people entering the tax bracket. That is an historical fact.
	It is also true that as well as the lowest paid being proportionately hardest hit by tax, they are the most vulnerable to unemployment, which is the inevitable secondary effect of high taxation. That is why the Conservative party is right, from the point of view of good economic management alone, to place the lowering of taxes high on its agenda for its return to office. A low-taxed economy happens to be a recipe for greater fairness and economic well-being. Economic management and social fairness are, however, not the only factors that guide Conservatives to the fundamental belief in the merits of low taxation. We Conservatives believe that, above all, it is a guarantee of personal freedom.
	The issue of how to cut taxes is not easy to address, particularly when the momentum towards ever-increasing taxation is as fast as it is at the moment. Certain taxes, such as the death tax, which is what the inheritance tax should be called, are theoretically easier to cut because, despite the emotion attached to them, they do not bring in much money to the Exchequer. In the case of inheritance tax, it is between £2 billion and £3 billion a year. As for the merits of the current level of inheritance tax, why should a person's home be taxed just because he has the misfortune to die in it? Why should he be able to sell it free of tax in life, but be taxed on its disposal in death?
	Cutting income tax in a way that carries real benefit to the general public is more difficult because the short-term loss of revenue is large. My personal view is that the way forward is to stabilise public spending to the rate of inflation and to divert real increases in GDP to tax cuts. In that way, national wealth will grow at a faster pace and in the medium term it will allow us to improve public services with budgetary impunity. There is also, of course, much that can be done to improve efficiency within the public services, about which parties on both sides of the House have talked. The need to cut waste is clear. In that context, I chair the Treasury Committee Sub-Committee, which recommended the amalgamation of Customs and Excise with the Inland Revenue, so I suppose I have to welcome that aspect of the Queen's Speech.

Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman will cheer even harder at this: the union will also insist on the right of trade unions to engage in secondary action. Mr.   Curran also called for a substantial rise in the minimum wage. One wonders whether reference in the Queen's speech to a law that streamlines railways is a direct response to that, in particular the call for renationalisation. Certainly, Tony Woodley, the general secretary of the T&G, wrote in the quasi Communist Morning Star in support of Kevin Curran, and he has attacked new Labour for being "pro-business". What, in effect, those increasingly powerful trade unions are saying is that one cannot be a true member of the Labour party and support business at the same time. All that is having an effect on business confidence, and thus on this country's economic prospects.
	The third great issue threatening this country—one to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East addressed himself at the end of his speech—is mentioned directly in the Queen's Speech: our relationship with Europe. As matters stand in the European Union, the process towards a federal state continues relentlessly, constitution or no constitution. The acquis communautaire, which is endemic in the Union treaties, ensures through the judgments of the European Court that the process moves in one direction and cannot be reversed. In the United Kingdom, the judgments of the European Court are supported by our courts under the terms of the European Communities Act 1972. That is true even when, as with the 1978 Merchant Shipping Bill, the British Parliament tries to reverse the judgments of the European Court.
	The significance of the proposed constitution is that its adoption would mean that European law had primacy over our law and over member states in its own right. The primacy of European law would no longer rest on the foundation of an Act of the British Parliament which was reversible. A new system of law would be established in the UK of its own right. The only escape from that would be for the UK to leave the EU. Currently, that would be possible under article 59 of the proposed constitution, but the article itself would be amendable through qualified majority voting in order to force countries to stay in the EU against their will. Although it is arguable that, in those circumstances, force majeure would apply, there would at the very least be legal chaos in which two separate systems of law would work side by side, in competition with each other.
	For those reasons, the Government's determination to adopt the new constitution needs to be resisted at every turn. For those who question the benefits of British membership of the European state, it is the single most important reason for rejecting the Government's claim in the Queen's Speech for continuing in office. Once the constitution is rejected—and with it, de facto, the acquis communautaire—it will become possible, especially taking into account the new moods in Germany and France, to renegotiate new arrangements in Europe—arrangements that will accommodate the desires not only of the British, but of those many new members of the EU, to live in harmony with their European neighbours and to retain their ultimate sovereignty, in the interests above all of democracy and the accountability of Governments to their peoples.
	It was bound to be the case that a Labour Government, if left in office for too long, would destroy the legacy of the Thatcher revolution on which this country's economic recovery has been based. The case for Labour in the mid-1990s was that it would be best able to reform public services, in particular the health service. Beginning with the sacking of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and, with him, throwing out pension reform, Labour has reverted to type. It has raised taxes and blown the proceeds, and now it is consolidating its return to its true roots by embracing trade union socialism.

Brian White: I hoped that the SRA would deliver some stability for the railway industry. One of the issues that applies across a number of regulators is how we should reconcile an independent regulator with Government policy. I was looking for independence and long-term thinking that was away from the day-to-day management of the railway, but the SRA did not deliver that, which is why I welcomed its abolition. It did not do the key thing that it needed to do—have the voice of the passenger at its heart. That was its key failing, and I think that the new arrangement has to have that role at its core. I hope that the in-built accountability to the Secretary of State will ensure that the passenger's voice is at the core of the new arrangements.
	I welcome the identity cards Bill. I have long been a supporter of the introduction of ID cards, but a letter that I received recently from a constituent encapsulates my views. He said:
	"ID cards are a good idea for the right reasons, benefits and NHS services, but . . . attach the terror tag to it and all of a sudden I am turned off by the idea".
	We need to reflect on whether this is the right way in which to tackle fraud or terrorism, given that if one can forge a passport, one can forge an ID card. Identify fraud has increased in every country that has introduced an ID card system. Going back to the 1970s, it took so long to catch the Baader-Meinhof gang because they had valid identities within the system, which recognised them as ordinary people, not terrorists. There is a danger of having too much data and not enough information, and certain skills are required to deal with that. Introducing ID cards as a panacea for fraud or terrorism will not work—the way forward is to do it so as to benefit people.
	We may end up creating a Betamax system when there is already a VHS system in the private sector. The main problem is the cost of readers. The credit card industry is creating cards that hold a lot of information, and we should piggy-back on that technology. Creating our own ID cards, with readers capable of reading biometrics, will be expensive, and we could find ways of doing it in conjunction with the private sector instead of reinventing the wheel through an in-house system.
	The largest biometric database in the world has about 500,000 records; here, we will reach 48 million in 10 years. Such a scaling-up of the technology has not yet happened, and I question whether it is possible in such a time scale. I fear that we are being overawed by the technology instead of recognising its limits.

Brian White: That is why I said that there are already reader systems that we can use: we do not to have to spend that kind of money on reinventing them. One of the dangers of introducing the system in-house is that by the time it is up and running private sector technology will be way ahead. Taking the "one big bang" approach is problematic.
	Capturing terrorists, like crime solving, is about doing the basics well—it will not be achieved by the magic panacea of an ID card. Given the growth of identity theft and the misuse of people's identities to create bank accounts or to defraud the benefits system, ID cards are a useful way of establishing identity, but they are not a solution to the problem of terrorism.
	Questions arise about the data. Who owns it—the state or the individual? Who has the right to make corrections? How does one resolve problems where mistakes have occurred? No one biometric—not even iris recognition—is 100 per cent. certain. DNA identification is certain, but expensive and time-consuming. The principle of ID cards is important, but the right technology is not yet available, and we must ensure that we do not fall into the bear traps that I have identified.

David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr.   Gill) on his maiden speech, which is a great occasion for any hon. Member. I made mine on the rate-capping Bill, and I followed Sir Edward Heath, so the House was packed. Sadly, the House is seldom packed these days. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I felt jealous when he said that he now represents the area in which he was born. I was born in West Ham, and fought that seat in 1979. If I had won then, that would have been the end of the Labour party. Although that may be a nice thought for me, I am sad to say that it did not happen.
	Like many hon. Members, I visited Leicester, South during the by-election campaign. I know that the hon. Member for Leicester, South faces a number of challenges locally and I wish him well with them. He spoke with great knowledge and fluency today about his constituency, and I wish him well as a Member of this House.
	A na-ve observer might say that today's Gracious Speech was wonderful, and that it was going to cure all the country's ills. However, not all of us are so na-ve. Today's Gracious Speech was not delivered after a Government election victory. We are now in the eighth year of this rotten Government. In that time, crime has become completely out of control, our hospitals are not as clean as we would want them, our immigration system is a shambles, school discipline has broken down, taxes have gone up 66 times, and people are not getting value for money.
	The Prime Minister has said that he wants to make the country more secure, yet a missile was thrown at him in this very Chamber and people have run on to the Floor of the House. That never happened before, but it has happened under a Government who say that they want to make the country more secure.
	The Prime Minister made his name as shadow Home Secretary by telling everyone that he would be tough on crime, yet there are a million violent crimes a year now. He said that he would save the NHS, but 5,000 people die in hospital from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. He did not forecast that when he was running for election in 1997.
	The Prime Minister said that he would make sure that the immigration system was firm and fair, but it is an absolute shambles. He has also said that our armed forces are a vital part of Britain's standing in the world, but he wants to cut their number. I do not understand how he thinks that that will make the country more secure.
	Labour said that it would be tough on crime and its causes, but police officers spend almost half their time at their desks filling in forms. They have to fill in even more forms when they actually stop someone. They spend more time filling in forms than they do fighting crime on the streets.
	The Government said that they were going to control immigration and that the policy would be fairer, faster and firmer. However, only one failed asylum seeker in five is removed from the country these days.
	The Prime Minister said that he would improve the NHS. However, he did not tell people that they would be in danger, while they were waiting in hospital for an operation, of contracting an illness that would kill them. That happened to 5,000 people last year.
	Finally, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to make the country more secure by building up our armed forces. How on earth can he stand at the Dispatch Box, as he did earlier today, when 2,500 infantry personnel are to be cut and six warships are to be lost from the Royal Navy? In addition, the number of ready-to-go fast jet aircraft is to be cut to only 84. People should examine the Gracious Speech very closely, as it is a sham, and mere gesture politics.
	The Government have let it be known that there will be an election in May, so we need not have bothered with a Queen's Speech today. The House will adjourn in April, so there will not be time to get any of the 32 Bills that have been announced onto the statute book, even if the Opposition supported them.
	I have read the Gracious Speech carefully, and want to speak briefly about various points. The speech states that the Government
	"will continue to reform the public services to ensure they provide more security and opportunity for all."
	Nothing that the Government have done convinces me that they are capable of reforming public services in a way that will provide more security and opportunity for anyone. The speech goes on to say that the Government
	"attaches the highest importance to extending educational opportunity so that all individuals can realise their full potential and the country can benefit from the talents of all its people."
	Like all Conservatives, I believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to make the most of his or her God-given talents. Under this Government, parental choice has gone out of the window—parents cannot send their children to the school of their choice. How can the Government square their aim of giving opportunity to all with their introduction of tuition fees? They said that they were not going to introduce those fees, but they will be a chain around students' necks for decades to come.
	We are told that the Government will introduce legislation to increase security for all, and I wish them well with that. I do not know what the answer to terrorism is. The climate today is that a person is willing to sacrifice his or her own life in order to kill others. What is the deterrent against that? Again, and in the light of what they have done since 1997, I say that I have absolutely no faith that the Government have any clue about how to deal with security.
	On identity cards, I was the first Member of this House to introduce a ten-minute Bill on this matter, and I am sick to death of just talking about it. Everyone has a birth certificate and a death certificate, so why should we not have a life certificate? It is absolute nonsense to say that such cards are a threat to our human rights. The sooner identity cards are introduced, the better. We should get on with it and not just talk about it.
	The Gracious Speech also says that the powers of the police and others to fight crime will be strengthened. For goodness' sake! We are to have eight Home Office Bills. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, police morale was rock bottom, and the very first thing we did was to introduce the Edmund-Davies report, which restored morale. It is a waste of time introducing more laws that will not be enforced. The problem is one of management. Far too many excellent officers take early retirement because they are stressed or for other reasons. That leaves us a police force that simply does not have the experience it needs. It is no good all officers being young. We are all on life's journey, and we need a mix of ages, common sense and proper training for the police. Having special constables walking around in exactly the same uniforms as properly trained police officers, pretending to the general public that they are the same, is absolutely ridiculous. The management of our police force needs to be dealt with, and we need to restore morale.
	The Government tell us that they are going to deal with drug abuse. Yet they are the Government who say it is all right to take cannabis. All Member of Parliament have people come to their constituency surgeries to tell them their problems, and I have at least half a dozen constituents who have been completely messed up and who suffer severe mental health problems from taking cannabis. It is absolutely ridiculous for any Member of Parliament to say that it is all right to take cannabis and that it does not damage health. It is a disgrace, and when we have a Conservative Government I hope that they will change all that.
	We are told that the Government will tackle the disorder and violence that can arise from the abuse of alcohol. Yet they are the same Government who are making it so easy to have alcohol. It is served everywhere. They are the same Government who have changed the licensing laws, yet they have the brass-necked cheek, in their gesture politics, to tell us they are going to be tough on alcohol abuse.
	We are told that the Government recognise the importance of clean and safe neighbourhoods. I have seen absolutely no evidence of delivery on that.
	I am delighted that there will be a Bill to help to reduce further the number of those killed or injured on the roads. However, Essex Members of Parliament know that out of all the country's constabulary areas, ours has raised the most from speed cameras. It is all very well the Government legislating further, but a 19-year-old constituent of mine, Jo Martinson, was killed when driving her car. Her parents will never get over it. The person responsible for the accident had one eye and was driving a vehicle with no insurance, no MOT and faulty tyres. Because of a complete mess-up with the timing of the prosecution, by one week, the only thing that has been done to that person is the imposition of a £60 fine. I do not think that the life of a 19-year-old is worth only £60. It is all very well the Government telling us they will introduce road safety measures, but my experience in Southend, West has been somewhat disappointing.
	I am delighted that the Government will introduce measures to deal with consumer credit. What goes on now is an absolute rip-off, given the amount of interest that the credit card companies charge. I welcome the Government's proposals and will support them in all their endeavours to deal with that unfair market.
	I would have been delighted to see something in the Gracious Speech about our airlines. I was a Member of this House when we privatised British Airways under the leadership of Lord King. That was one of the finest things we ever did, but anyone who travels on British Airways now will find it an absolute joke. It is a cross between easyJet and Ryanair. Services in British Airways, which has a monopoly, have gone down and down. I hope the Government will address that.
	We are told that the Government will introduce a Bill to improve standards of animal welfare and increase the penalties for abuse. I have a consistent record of supporting animal welfare legislation, and I certainly support the Government's endeavours in that regard. No doubt as we rush towards the general election we will be able to get all-party agreement. I will be introducing a 10-minute Bill, inspired by the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, to amend the Fireworks Act 2003, because the noise from fireworks this year was frankly out of control and resulted in the deaths of any number of animals.
	I am disappointed that the Gracious Speech contained nothing to do with mobile telephones, given that all Members make speeches about them and say that the current policy on masts is shocking. I introduced a 10-minute Bill, the Telecommunications Masts (Need and Safety) Bill, which would have put the onus on operators to prove that there was no danger to health and a need for a mast to be put in place. I was given the impression that the Government would legislate on that, but there was absolutely nothing in the Queen's Speech.
	While we are talking about mobile phones, and gesture politics, I should say that it is a criminal offence to use a mobile phone while driving. Yet, right now, thousands and thousands of cars will contain people on their mobile phones. Nothing at all is done to enforce that law.
	We are told that health is a priority for the Government, but unless I missed it, there is not one health Bill in the Queen's Speech. Following the Government's White Paper, the very least we expected was a public health Bill. The report of the Select Committee on Health on obesity was excellent, but treating that is not a short-term project. We are into that for 20 years. It will be all very well messing about with the Olympic bid for 2012, when everyone will be running, jumping and hopping, and there will be more physical activity. People do not die if they do not engage in physical recreation, but they do die if they do not eat and drink. We must tackle the fat, sugar and salt put into what we eat and drink.
	There will be legislation concerning lotteries. Wow! That is excellent news in Southend, West. I was one of those who very much supported the Conservative Government who introduced the national lottery. Yet in the last 10 years, my constituency has received a total of £1,480,442, which puts us third from bottom among the 659 parliamentary constituencies. We certainly are not the third wealthiest constituency in the country. When I raise the point, I am told that there are not enough bids and the quality is not what it should be. I do not believe that for a moment.
	I note from the Gracious Speech that the Government will reduce bureaucracy. That is laughable. The Deputy Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box last week, with no grace at all, to talk about the referendum that had been held. Some 80 per cent. voted no, and 20 per cent. voted yes. That referendum cost the British people £10 million. Did the Deputy Prime Minister say he would stop all that nonsense? He did not. The east of England assembly was awarded £2,974,000 so that that absolute nonsense can continue.
	I also note that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise will be joined together. I hope to goodness that the Government do not intend to affect the jobs of people working at Portcullis house in Southend. That is the biggest employer in the town, and the people do an absolutely magnificent job. Under no circumstances do I want any jobs cut there.
	I will do everything I can to secure the election of a Conservative Government, a Government who will restore decency to this country, a Government who will put this country back together, and a Government who will make Britain great again.

Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) said some peculiar things. He said that everyone had a death certificate. No living person has a death certificate. If he wants to establish the point, perhaps he will show me his death certificate. He then said that he supported privatisation of the airlines, but criticised British Airways and said that it was a mix between Easyjet and Ryanair. What are Easyjet and Ryanair but the cutting edge of the cheap end of the private market? So, the examples that he used told against his own argument.
	I wish to say a few words about the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Gill). My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and I were impressed by the comments that he made about Jim Marshall. Although the Chamber is not well attended, these things get around and his comments are liable to be reported in the Leicester press. Our respected former colleague meant a great deal to people on both sides of the Chamber.
	The hon. Member for Leicester, South quoted at length from a speech by Jim and said a great deal about ethnic groups and cultural links within his constituency. Such links are telling for a person such as me. The constituency that I represent has one of the smallest ethnic minority populations in England—it is in the bottom 10. When people who have picked stuff up from the Daily Mail or other sources and would push rather racist arguments, I say to them, "The problem is that you do not know what areas are like. Go to places such as Leicester and see what the communities are like and interlink. You will see that many of the perceived problems do not exist or can be overcome if people work together."
	I canvassed in Leicester, South—unsuccessfully. It was very interesting. I canvassed in areas called Chesterfield road, Staveley road and Dronfield road in my constituency. I also represent part of Staveley. I used to visit Leicester, South a great deal. There was once a firm there called Blackfriars Press, which was associated with the Labour movement. I was on the board of Blackfriars Press. It was the only occasion when I have been on the capitalist wing of things rather than on the workers' side. It was interesting to be in that area, which had differences and distinctions from the area that I reside in and that I now represent.
	I travel by train from Chesterfield to London. The last time that I passed through Leicester, the Sunderland-Leicester match was about to begin. I am a Sunderland supporter, and unfortunately I missed the match; it was one of the few occasions when we have won against Leicester. The only times I have been to Leicester, we have always been beaten by Leicester City.
	I was pleased to be in the Chamber for the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South. I do not know how people will judge him. When I made my maiden speech, Dale Campbell-Savours, now Lord Campbell-Savours, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) what he thought, and my hon. Friend said, "He is a late-night kamikaze pilot." I did not know what a late-night kamikaze pilot was. The House used to sit late in those days, sometimes through the night, which we do not now, and a handful of people could keep the whole thing going and cause all sorts of problems for the Government of the day. Dale Campbell-Savours knew before I did that I was a late-night kamikaze pilot. Perhaps some of us have ideas about the contributions that the hon. Gentleman will make in the future.
	If there is a general election in May next year, this is the last contribution that I will make to a Queen's Speech debate. I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I am a little self-indulgent. I will attempt always to be in order and will refer throughout to items contained in the Queen's Speech, but I may do so in a rather personal way.
	The Queen's Speech talks about streamlining
	"the organisation of the national rail system to improve performance."
	That is a matter of considerable interest to me. I started my working life as a railway clerk. Even when I engaged in my national service, I was working as a rail transport official in Basra with the Iraqi state railway. The privatisation of the railways here was the most doctrinaire piece of privatisation that the Conservative Government entered into. They had no understanding of the nature of railways. Even in the 19th century, people such as Alfred Marshall, who was not a socialist economist, said that railways were natural monopolies. They said that we had to recognise that they developed as monopolies and therefore we had to regulate and control them. To try to work a system in which someone controlled the rail track and different companies ran over the same lines was nonsense. Until we invent some "Beam me down, Scottie" system and we do not need railways, the notion that we can apply such extreme privatisation and competitive principles to the operation of a system such as the railways is nonsense.

Harry Barnes: There may be some problems with European law and I could suggest avenues for seeking to come to terms with them. It strikes me that whatever the local difficulties with European law, the answer for the railways is that we should have a decent public ownership system. That is the policy of the Labour party conference. When the matter is brought before the House, it will be discovered that some of us will try to push the Government further. We will seek to tackle the matter that the hon. Gentleman has just raised.
	I mentioned that part of my railway clerk experience was as a member of the forces. I was in the RAF in Basra in a movements unit that used to move troops and goods from the port and Basra up to Baghdad to be taken up to the camp in Habbaniya. The Queen's Speech says that the
	"Government will continue to support the Government of Iraq to provide stability and security and ensure that elections can be held in January."
	I am one of those who opposed the invasion, but I realise that once the invasion had taken place, new sets of circumstances began to be created. I would have preferred to give assistance and encouragement to the considerable forces of opposition in Iraq at different stages who wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and change the system. When people struggle within their own system, they develop organisations and arrangements that are part of the transformation and have the potential to build a democratic society. That was not done. Such organisations—clandestine bodies—existed, but the invasion still took place.
	We must now look to the development of a democratic Iraq, with civic provisions in a new framework. We must argue against unacceptable military action and try to prevent its worst excesses, but we must realise that terrorism cannot be allowed to rule the roost; it must be contained and people must be defended in order to build democratic provisions and arrangements. There are considerable forces in Iraq that look towards those things—women's organisations, youth organisations, ex-prisoners organisations, community groups, trade unions and bodies such as the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, which has 200,000 members in 14 organisations—in a setting of 50 per cent. unemployment, massive problems and difficulties about which forms of privatisation will take place. Will it be a rip-off, as it was when the regime changed in the Soviet Union? There are worries about those issues, but there are forces for a better and improved Iraq.
	Democracy is not just about voting in a ballot; it is about civil liberties, organisations and people's rights and freedoms to press their corner and get involved. I am joint president, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, of Labour Friends of Iraq, and I am keen that other political parties should establish similar groups. Our joint presidency is symbolic, as my hon. Friend supported what she would call a liberation, but which I call an invasion, while I opposed it, so it shows that people can come together on specific items and work in current circumstances to try to determine a way forward and whom they should assist.
	I said that I would be self-indulgent. The next item I want to refer to is educational opportunity. The Gracious Speech referred to "the highest importance" of
	"extending educational opportunity so that all individuals can realise their full potential".
	I was an adult student. Some people need second opportunities in education, but I was a late developer. I was lucky enough to go to Ruskin college with no formal qualifications and, after a two-year course, to gain a diploma. It was through that avenue that I was able to go to university. Much is being done to extend lifetime education in various fields, often with associated modules and certification that enable people to move into other sectors. To some extent, that has squeezed the old, liberal adult education tradition in places such as Northern college, near Barnsley, and Ruskin college. We should realise that that element still exists.
	People change their interests in life and there is much more information in the media to grab people's interest and help them to develop their potential without having to qualify for certificates and modular recognition at an early stage, so an open form of education and the time to study in institutions such as those I mentioned is worth while.
	I taught access courses at Sheffield university. People with no formal qualifications who studied those courses did better at university or college than those who had not had the opportunity to go down that avenue. I hope that the Government consider such forms of education as an important element that can add to the valuable work that is being done elsewhere.
	The next item I want to refer to is the legislation to be introduced
	"to combat discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religion, as well as race, sex and disability".
	The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) suggested that age should be added to those categories. I am worried about those matters—[Interruption.]—not just about age. To discriminate or attack people on grounds of race, sex, disability or age is entirely unacceptable and we should have the strongest legislation against that. However, if someone attacks another person on the ground of religion, we must be careful about where we draw the boundaries. If a person is abusive or derogatory about another person's religion, that is an extreme form of attack and action is justified to protect people. However, discussion and argument about religious matters is of considerable importance.

Ian Paisley: I thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for not being present for most of the debate through no fault of my own, for I was enclosed in the talks that are going on about Northern Ireland between the Government and some of our parties. I came from those talks directly to the House, and I appreciate you calling me to speak in the debate.
	In the Gracious Speech, Her Majesty said that her Government
	"will work to bring about the conditions necessary for the restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland."
	Of course, that is why the talks have taken place and why my party has taken part in those talks. The Prime Minister made it clear what the basis and aims of the talks are. I refer the House to a statement that he made in the city of Belfast on 17 October 2002, in which he said:
	"Another inch by inch negotiation won't work. Symbolic gestures, important in their time, no longer build trust. It is time for acts of completion. Republicans to make the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent. For all of us, an end to tolerance of paramilitary activity in any form. A decision that from here on in, a criminal act is a criminal act. One law for all, applied equally to all."
	It was on that basis that my party joined in those talks.
	On 27 November 2002 I asked whether the Prime Minister was
	"aware that in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?"
	The Prime Minister replied:
	"I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
	Those statements are crystal clear and on that basis my party joined the talks. It has spent considerable time and energy in them because we hoped that at very long last we were coming to a time when democracy would conquer and intolerance, paramilitary activities, murders and terrorism would come to a complete and total end.
	Running with that is that we need not only full decommissioning but an end to the criminal activities of IRA-Sinn Fein. The Prime Minister made it clear that he also believed that they must cease. Then I read in a newspaper this week that a leading member of Sinn Fein in the south of Ireland is spying on senior Fianna Fail and Fine Gael politicians, and there is a hue and a cry from IRA-Sinn Fein that the Dublin courts do not provide justice and that that man should not be condemned. So the IRA is busily engaged in those activities.
	Some people say to me, "But Ian, is it not a fact that things are now different?" People should not be deceived. We do not have a normal situation in Northern Ireland. I have the last report made to the Northern Ireland Policing Board by the Chief Constable. He gave the figures for what happened last year, and this year as far as they go. The number of persons charged with terrorist offences was 56 in April to September 2003, and 41 in April to September 2004. That is not a big reduction or normalisation. The number of deaths occurring as a result of the security situation was four in April to September 2003, and three in April to September 2004. The number of shooting incidents was 103 in April to September 2003, and 103 in April to September 2004. The number of bombing incidents was 26 in April to September 2003, and 37 in April to September 2004. The number of casualties arising from paramilitary-style attacks was 149 in April to September 2003, and 116 in April to September 2004.
	The situation is not normal. It is essential not only that IRA-Sinn Fein put away all their guns and that those are seen to be put out of use for ever, but that we see what happens to their massive criminal activity. Something like £500,000 of cigarettes were recently stolen from the Gallaher's factory. All those things are piling up, as well as the bombings, killings, targeting, recruiting and so on. The Government have to face up to the problem. Yet in the midst of that we are told that, because of normalisation, certain things are to take place and the Royal Irish Regiment is to be cut. In fact, steps have been taken eventually to disband that regiment altogether.
	We need to keep those things in mind when great pressure is put on Northern Ireland's politicians to make a settlement. If there is to be real peace in Northern Ireland, IRA-Sinn Fein must give up all their weapons in a way that the ordinary man in the street knows that it has been done. It must be clear and open, and there must be a ceasing of their criminal activities and those activities that continually put a black spot on our Province. The soldiers of the RIR deserve honest treatment. They need honesty, clarity and certainty about what is happening to their regiment.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the statement issued tonight by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in which he claims to have negotiated the retention of the Royal Irish Regiment last year? Is he also aware that soldiers are being briefed across the Province that their regiment or the home service battalions are to be disbanded within the next 18 months? Will he therefore comment on what Mr. Trimble said?

Ian Paisley: Mr. Trimble has said many things. He told us about decommissioning. It did not happen. He told us that we were lying to the people when we said that it did not happen. I asked the civil servants at the talks at Leeds castle, "What was the decommissioning?" One of them said, "Don't cause my face to get red." How many guns were put away? Possibly two the first time, possibly four the second time, and possibly 12 the third time. Yet politicians tell us that if we only knew how many IRA-Sinn Fein gave away, we would be amazed.
	I am not a youngster. I am getting on and have been in Northern Ireland politics not because I wanted to but because the people put me there. I want the matter settled in such a way that I can think of tomorrow and the children and grandchildren of tomorrow knowing that they are going to live in part of the United Kingdom where there is proper peace and where the enemies of our Province, whether they call themselves loyalists, IRA men or anything else, cannot break the law and be armed to break the law.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said, the regiment members know that the guillotine is upon them. I have facts on that which I shall give to the Secretary of State for Defence when I meet him tomorrow. The soldiers that served and bore the burden in the heat of the day deserve help from the House to be rehabilitated into the civilian population. They deserve to be treated as honourable people who gave their lives in the service of freedom. I appeal to the House to see that that is done.
	The other matter that I am concerned about is the fact that tomorrow I have to meet the Prime Minister of the south of Ireland and our Prime Minister, and I regret that tonight I do not have, and have never got from either of them, an assurance that the IRA are going properly to decommission their weapons. They argue now that decommissioning has to be done in a corner and that we cannot have photographs of it. If there are to be photographs, they will take them. They claim the right to keep them, and any royalties for printing them in a newspaper will be paid to the IRA. That is what they are at now. All I can say to the House is that I believe that both Governments must put to an end to that by standing up and saying, "Do what the Prime Minister said. Let us have completion. Let us come to an end. Finish this once and for all, and give to the people of Northern Ireland the liberties and rights that they deserve."
	I have dedicated myself to that task. My party has dedicated itself to that task. We are not going to run away from the table and we are not going to be pressurised. We are going to stick to the issue as it was presented to us. Were we brought into the talks under false pretences, or are the Government going to keep their word? That is the issue. I trust that we will see the Government keeping their word. I trust that soon the people of Northern Ireland will know that the IRA are finished once and for all, the other terrorists are finished once and for all and we will have peace on the basis of democracy—all men equal under the law, and all men subject to that law. That is what it has to be.
	I trust that the House will understand what the Unionist population have suffered and what the Roman Catholic population have suffered from IRA-Sinn Fein. Many thousands of Roman Catholics vote for me. Anyone who does not believe that should go and watch the results coming out of the ballot boxes in some areas—they will get a big surprise. I remember standing with John Hume and saying, "What about those votes, John? Why are those people voting for me?" He said, "Well, Ian, I don't know." I said, "I'll tell you. It's because I have tried as best as I can to do right by all the parties I represent."
	I say to the House that now is the time for it to exercise its power with the Government, and see that this sad chapter is closed and that opportunities will be given for all people, no matter what their religion or their political convictions, who want to live in peace to do so. We must use the system of democracy to help their families and to help the future. That is what I wish.
	I am glad that I followed the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) because he has always taken an interest in Northern Ireland. We do not see things the same, but he has always been in his place, and I regret the fact that he is not coming back after the general election. Maybe after this debate he will be persuaded that he should come back and finish the job that he feels he should do.

Chris Grayling: I know what the hon. Gentleman is encouraging me to say. I could pick 1997 as an obvious time when the decline started. He would no doubt try to claim that it began in 1979. I think that it has been a trend over the past 40 or 50 years, and it is accelerating. The level of respect in our society is decreasing and the likelihood of people stepping outside conventional, legal, law-abiding behaviour is increasing as time goes by, and we must address that.
	Hon. Members who have talked about the need for a broad range of solutions and for different agencies to work together to bring different ideas to bear on the problem are all absolutely right. There is no single solution, but if we do not deliver proper policing and stop people in their tracks when they commit illegal acts, acts of disorder and antisocial behaviour, they will realise that there is no sanction and they will offend and re-offend. That must stop.
	Let us take the example of Manchester. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there has been much coverage about the lack of officers available in Manchester city centre on a Saturday night. There are perhaps a dozen trying to control all the pubs and clubs in central Manchester, and that cannot be right. We must get more officers on the streets, tackling the issues up front. We must be tougher and not let people get away with such behaviour.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said a moment ago, the problem does not have a single solution. Active and proactive participation from all those involved is required; licensees clearly have a role to play in reducing antisocial behaviour. None the less, where there is trouble, illegality and disorder, the police are too often unable to do anything about it. A couple of years ago, there was a large illegal rave involving 2,000 or 3,000 people just outside my constituency. As the event started to build, 12 officers were available in the local station in Kingston. They said that there was nothing that they could do, so the event built up and became a major public order problem. We simply do not have enough officers to deal with problems when they arise.
	None of these problems will be solved by a raft of new legislation or increased bureaucracy—by Metropolitan police officers having to fill in forms every time they stop someone on the streets. I wait patiently, but probably fruitlessly, for the Government to realise that we will reduce crime only if we put the police back into pole position—if we give them real power again, trust them with the job and get them out of police stations and back on to the streets to do the job that we need them to do: fair but tough policing of such problems.
	If ever there were a symbol of a Government whose transport policy has been in chaos, continues to be in chaos and will be in chaos until we can finally get rid of them, it is the railways Bill. To hear all the noises that the Government have made in recent months, one would think that the Strategic Rail Authority was a Tory creation. It was the Government's great answer to the problems of the railways. "The terrible Tories", they said, "have privatised the railways and caused chaos. Our Strategic Rail Authority will solve the problem." Three or four years later, the Government have discovered that it does not work. Sadly, I have no confidence that the alternative announced today will do any better. We are seeing the creeping renationalisation of the railways. Many responsibilities for the management of the network are being passed to Network Rail, which is a creature of Government. The remainder are being passed back to the Department for Transport. Step by step, the Government are taking back control of the railways.
	Sadly, all of that misses the point. What is wrong with our rail network is that it is over-congested. There are more passengers on our railways today than before the Beeching cuts were made to a much larger rail network. I travel into Waterloo in the mornings, and it would not matter who owned or controlled the railways, because there are too many trains chasing too few slots, too few platforms and too little space at key junctions. It is not about ownership or control, but about measures to alleviate congestion.
	One tragedy of the past few years was that the SRA produced a clear strategy to address some of the pinch points on the network, including on the routes through my constituency, but within a few months of those ideas being put forward the Government shelved them all. All around the country there are opportunities to ease congestion that this Government have passed by. That is a great loss. When Labour loses office, people will look back on transport policy as one of its great failings.
	The references to education in the Gracious Speech had a heavy element of double-speak:
	"The Government will continue to legislate to allow local authorities to provide innovative and safe school transport",
	which really means that the Government will continue to make progress on passing a law that will end the provision of free school transport. The Gracious Speech also said:
	"A Bill will be introduced to extend financial support for 16 to 19 year olds engaged in training and education."
	That really means that the Government will charge substantially higher fees to those in our colleges who study at level 3 and above and who are over the age of 19. That is top-up fees mark II. If one reads the documentation behind the proposed measure, one sees great commonality between what the Government said about top-up fees and what they are now saying about the new proposal. They are saying that people who get higher qualifications earn a premium in their professional and working lives, so they should contribute more to the education that they receive. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who is no longer in his place, talked about his experience of coming to qualifications slightly later in life than many people. Somebody who leaves school at 16 having failed in their exams, goes back to college immediately to try again and works their way through level 1 and level 2 qualifications will probably be 19 before they set about obtaining a level 3 qualification. Such a person will now be charged a 50 per cent. higher fee.
	Across the further education sector, there will be examples of people who are trying to broaden their skills and to move themselves to the next stage professionally, but who will lose out significantly. Such people may be deterred by the measure, which is not about deferred fee payments in further education; it is about money up front, paid by the students, many of whom will turn away from education and training as a result. For all the Government's great words about commitment to broadening educational access to all, the measure is a retrograde step that they will come to regret.
	That measure features in a Queen's Speech that is disappointing, will not make a difference and is useful for the Government in generating headlines. Good government is actually about doing the right things, and not just about public relations spin to try to win elections. What is lacking in this Government is substance and action that delivers real results and change. I hope that, when we come to vote next year, the people of this country will understand that and vote for the change that they really need—a change of Government.

Michael Fallon: I remind the House of the business interests recorded in the register.
	The Government are very keen on warnings. There are new health warnings on cigarettes, and there are to be wealth warnings on credit card statements. I think that there should be a label displaying a clear warning at the bottom of Queen's Speeches. Today's speech was something of a deception. By my reckoning, at least two thirds of the Bills will never become Acts. Worse, there are phrases in the Queen's Speech that are a sham:
	"My Government will continue to take forward . . . the constitutional legislation introduced last year."
	Let us be clear about that. The constitutional legislation introduced last year is not going on to the statute book this year, and I very much doubt that it will do so in any year. Even more disgracefully, we were told:
	"Measures to reform the law on mental health will continue to undergo pre-legislative scrutiny."
	Those measures are updating legislation that is now 20 years old. More than four years ago, the then Secretary of State for Health promised me that it was a Government priority, but it is still at the stage of pre-legislative scrutiny. That is simply not good enough for a Government who were committed to introducing them.
	There is always something to welcome in any Queen's Speech. I particularly welcome the measures on animal welfare and against animal welfare extremism, which are very important. I also welcome the Bill to merge the Inland Revenue and Customs. I do so on behalf of the Select Committee on the Treasury, which recommended such action almost five years ago. I have to tell the House that the Government then turned down our recommendation, and it is only now, some four and half years later and after the O'Donnell review, that it has finally been accepted.
	The Treasury Committee reported on the O'Donnell review as well, and I hope that the Bill that is introduced to complete the merger takes account of our two major concerns. First, we were concerned that merging two very large organisations with very different cultures should not put at risk the collection of the revenue and the service that individual and business taxpayers deserve to receive. Secondly, confidentiality should be protected and indeed enhanced in statute. That is all the more important because the two departments and their policy-making arms are now being moved into the Treasury building itself, and the arm's length relationship that should exist between Treasury Ministers and Revenue officials may become all the more suspect when they are sharing the same corridor, building or cafeteria. I hope that those two reservations or concerns will be taken into account when the Bill is introduced.
	I also notice—it is possible that they Deputy Leader of the House can help me on this—no reference anywhere in the Queen's Speech to legislation to reform statistics. The way in which this Government have treated statistics is nothing short of disgraceful. First, they promised a statutory framework to make statistics truly independent of Government. Having spent four years producing the code of practice, they have welched on that responsibility and not introduced the necessary legislation. That is all the more important when national statistics and the national statistician are being dragged into the political arena because the Government have set themselves all these different targets and have then expected statistics to be thrown up to measure their achievement or otherwise.
	It is all the more important that we put the Office for National Statistics on a basis that is truly independent of Government. At the moment, its staffing and resourcing, as well as, indeed, the staffing and resourcing of the body that supervises national statistics, the Statistics Commission, depend on the Treasury budget. The national statistician and the ONS are still responsible to a Treasury Minister. That is not good enough in a modern democracy, and we should legislate soon to give ourselves the independent department of statistics and independent office of the national statistician that other modern democracies have.
	As some of my hon. Friends have said, the Government are still flailing around improving security and public behaviour. We spend weeks in this building debating banning smacking, smoking and hunting, and suddenly the Government wake up and realise that, with an election coming, they have to deal properly with terrorism and yob culture. If these terrorism Bills are now so necessary, why has it taken the Government three years after September 2001 to tighten our security? Was it that the original Bills were so badly drafted that new offences have suddenly proved necessary? Why, three years after that dreadful act, are the Government still flailing around trying to come up with the right legislative response? On antisocial behaviour, why is this now their third attempt to improve the legislation to give the police and local authorities the powers that they really need to crack down on such behaviour? I do not think that that is good enough.
	My priorities for this Queen's Speech would have been very different indeed. If the Government really wanted to help communities such as the villages in Sevenoaks, I can tell the Deputy Leader of the House exactly what he should have been proposing. He should have been doing something about the planning rules that Travellers continually ride roughshod over in my villages—in West Kingsdown, Halstead, Crockenhill and Hextable. All we are promised is yet another review. Instead of another review, there should be action.
	First, there should be a presumption against retrospective planning in the green belt or areas of outstanding natural beauty. Why should Travellers or those who act on their behalf for very distinct commercial purposes be allowed to apply for retrospective planning permission that they know should not be granted?

Michael Fallon: The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to accept my three points, and I will accept his, but those are all matters that we could put right in this House through legislation. We could give the Environment Agency greater powers and help local authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees, for example, that it is unfair to expect parish councils constantly to pick up the tab for the legal costs of enforcement and for clearing up sites when it has been successful. The Government could do much to help communities in that respect, and I regret that there is no such proposal in the Queen's Speech.
	The Government could be helping patients. I do not understand why the Government continue to spend money on setting up more health bureaucracies when, seven and a half years after they promised to get rid of them, we still have the indignity of mixed-sex wards in the Kent and Sussex hospital, which serves my constituency. After repeated promises to phase them out, they are still there despite all the additional health expenditure and all the new health bureaucrats.
	The Government could be helping teachers and parents. I share the concern expressed by my hon.   Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris   Grayling) about charging for school transport. How much more refreshing it would have been had the Government proposed a Bill that ensured that the home-to-school contract gave schools the powers they need to get the co-operation of parents in ensuring that children are delivered to school on time ready to be taught, and was made enforceable by the school's refusal to take pupils whose parents did not comply with it. And how refreshing it would have been had the Government announced that they would stop interfering in the admissions arrangements of our schools and local authorities through the adjudicator.
	For commuters, instead of yet another reorganisation of the rail bureaucracies, why cannot we have a commitment to cleaner, more punctual trains, on which so many of our constituents depend? My constituents do not write to me saying that they want another reorganisation of Network Rail, another look at the way in which the Strategic Rail Authority is set up or a different relationship between the regulator and the Minister—what they want are clean, punctual and reliable trains.

Michael Weir: The legislative programme put before us today contains some very interesting Bills, including some that we might support should they ever be put to a vote.
	At the centre of the Queen's Speech is the law and order and terrorism agenda. It is a shame that the Government came to power claiming to restore hope but now cling to office by turning to the politics of fear. This Queen's Speech is clearly a prelude to a general election campaign in which fear and terror will be placed at the heart of the Government's proposals. It is probable that leaflets accusing those who have the temerity not to agree wholeheartedly with ID cards of being soft on crime are already winging their way to the printers and will soon be coming through a door near us. In 1997, Labour told us, "Things can only get better". That now has a hollow ring, but perhaps its 2001 anthem, "Lifted", will take on a new meaning should many of these measures go through.
	At the heart of the Government's agenda is the Bill on identity cards, but that has already descended into utter confusion with Ministers all over the place on what ID cards are and what they are meant to achieve. I heard one Minister on the radio at lunchtime describing ID cards as a means of dealing with identity fraud, asylum, crime, fraud in public services and terrorism, as well as offering gold-plated proof of identity. That is a lot for one little card to manage to do. Other Ministers have told us that they are no different from a store card or a driving licence. Well, frankly, they cannot be both. Either they are an aid to fighting terrorism or they are no different from a store card.
	We were presented with a vision by one Minister who said, "When people are stopped in their car and they don't have their driving licence with them, they can hand it in to the police later on. That's all right; there's no problem with that." However, it strikes me that, if an identity card is meant to deter terrorism, it would fail in that objective if the police were to stop a suspected terrorist and say, "We suspect you of terrorism. Where is your identity card?", and, on being told, "I don't have it", asked the person to hand it in to the police within 72 hours, 14 days, or whatever. That would rather defeat the purpose.
	So, what is the identity card for? That is the crux of the proposal, and of the muddled thinking behind it. It is even worse when we consider the situation in Scotland. The Scottish Executive have—quite rightly, in my view—said that they will not make identity cards compulsory for services delivered under the devolved Administration. However, in an earlier exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the Prime Minister confirmed that, as far as the Westminster Government were concerned, identity cards would be compulsory for services delivered from Westminster Departments. So we now face the ridiculous situation in which, if someone wanted to go to a doctor or hospital in Scotland, they would not need to present an identity card, but if they wanted to pick up their pension or their benefit, they would have to do so. That is a recipe for utter confusion, if ever there was one. It gets worse, however. We are told that identity cards are essential in protecting those services. I have many elderly constituents who are already struggling with Post Office card accounts and bank cards, and the PIN numbers that go with them. They will now also have to struggle with an identity card when they try to collect their pension. That, too, is a recipe for utter confusion.
	We are told that the cards will not be compulsory. The Prime Minister suggested that they would be voluntary to start with, moving towards compulsion. As I understand it, however, anyone who applies for a passport will also have to apply for an identity card at the same time, and pay an increased fee to get it. A Minister said on the radio today that that would involve 80 per cent. of the population. That sounds pretty compulsory to me. The difference between identity cards and driving licences, store cards or any other cards is that people have a choice whether to apply for one of those cards, but they would not have a choice in regard to an identity card, as they will become compulsory.
	The logic behind the system is that the card will become compulsory anyway, but its application will have to become stricter if it is to have any chance of dealing with the many things that people claim that it will tackle. It will become compulsory, whether we like it or not. It will become compulsory in Scotland by stealth for the same reason, and that is something that the Executive need to deal with. If the Government want to make it compulsory, they should debate the issue on those terms, rather than in the wishy-washy way in which they are doing at the moment, saying, "Oh, it's not really compulsory. You'll get used to it. It's all voluntary." That is simply not true. It will become compulsory because that is the logic of the system that they are introducing.
	Worse than that is the fact that the identity card scheme is unlikely to produce the desired result. Let us take the example of the fight against terrorism. We all agree that terrorism is a problem that we need to fight against, but the argument should be about the best way of doing that. I suggest that identity cards will not offer effective protection against terrorism. In the most high-profile al-Qaeda attacks, terrorists either moved across borders using tourist visas—as they did in the 11 September attacks—or were already domiciled in the country concerned and equipped with legitimate identity cards, as in the case of the Madrid bombings. There is no evidence that identity cards would have any impact on dealing with the terrorist threat.
	Also, fraud will be committed in any system. Many of those who take part in organised crime and terrorism will already have several passports and identity cards from other areas. In the United States, they might perhaps have driving licences from several states. That is already an established way of getting round identity checks, and one new card from the UK is not going to make any difference. However, Ministers have said that there will be a significant difference because of the biometric data that will be stored on the card. We are told that that will involve cutting-edge technology, and that that will be the answer to the problem.
	However, the technology is unproven and has never been used on a large scale. I think that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said earlier that the biggest existing biometric database held information on only some 2,000 individuals, but we are talking about a UK-wide system that would be required to cover millions of individuals, and whose technology would have to work. I—and, I suspect, most other hon. Members—have a filing cabinet full of cases involving constituents whose lives have been blighted by the failures of the computer system at the Child Support Agency. The Government have an appalling record on computer systems, not just at the CSA. Other hon. Members have mentioned the Passport Agency, the immigration service, and even the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The stark reality is that the Government, whose record on computer systems is shocking, are proposing to introduce a system to deal with something as important as identity cards, using unproven technology.
	How are we to collect this biometric data, if the system is to be semi-voluntary? Will people be obliged to give an iris print, a blood sample or a fingerprint? How would that be consistent with traditional civil liberties in the UK? Are we going to be given the opportunity to say that we do not want this? No, we are not, because eventually we shall need the card to make a hospital visit, to collect benefits and pensions, and to do everything else. Identity cards are a very bad idea. I am sure that we shall all be accused of being soft on crime if we press ahead and oppose them, but we are going to oppose them, because we are not convinced that they will go any way towards doing what is claimed.
	We have heard about the Bill to set up a British FBI, as it is already colloquially called. There might be some merit behind that proposal, provided that proper care is taken with Scots law. Again, however, we need to know more details. Much has been made of the railways Bill, which we will probably support, as something definitely needs to be done to tackle the state of the railways. But, as always, the devil is in the detail. We are told that responsibility for the railways will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and possibly the Welsh Assembly. However, we have not been told what funding from the old Strategic Rail Authority and its schemes would go with that devolution of responsibility, but that would be important.
	We are also not sure about the status of some of the main cross-border lines. That has been a matter of contention with the SRA, which considered that the line as far north as Edinburgh was a strategic line, but that nothing north of there was strategic, and that although much of the system was proposed to be devolved, that line was not, because of its strategic nature. These measures must be set out in much greater detail before we can decide whether to support them, provided, of course, that they even reach the Floor of the House before the general election, which we are reliably informed—or not so reliably, depending on one's point of view—will almost certainly be in May. It is no coincidence that, although identity cards have been talked about for years, it is only in the dying days of this Parliament that they are being brought before us for debate. The cynics among us might suspect that that is because the Government know perfectly well that the proposals will get a rough ride here and there is no chance of their getting on to the statute book before the election, but that they will provide some wonderful ammunition in the election campaign.
	We have heard about the proposed disability discrimination Bill. I have a personal interest in that subject, and I await with interest the detail of the provisions. It has been suggested, in the press at least, that the Bill will attach certain duties to local authorities. Again, however, if more such duties are to be introduced, we shall want to know whether any funds will be made available to follow them. Government after Government have placed more and more duties on local authorities, but the funding does not necessarily follow. This makes it more and more difficult for the authorities to carry out those duties and puts an even greater burden on the council tax payer. That is true in England, as it is in Scotland.
	Mention has also been made of the consumer credit Bill. In principle, I would be keen to support that, as the terms of some consumer credit agreements are scandalous. Massive interest rates can be charged on those agreements, not only by so-called loan sharks but by supposedly respectable high street banks and stores, whose interest rates can be very high. In the Meadows case, for example, relatively small amounts ended up over the years as a massive debt. Such cases should not be allowed to continue. Perhaps we should go further, however, and consider capping interest charges.
	The Queen's Speech is missing certain measures that should be included. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) referred to the Child Support Agency, and the chaos in which it finds itself following the resignation of its director. Many of my constituents, both parents with care and parents without care, are at their wit's end in their dealings with the CSA. Many of those cases have been dragging on for years without end. Many women are owed huge arrears, which are not being chased up, and they are being fobbed off with excuse after excuse. I have taken up many cases on their behalf—we have been successful in some, whereas in others, we are still banging our head against a brick wall with the agency.
	In an increasing number of cases, the agency is paying out for its maladministration, because it is simply unable to do the job that it is supposed to do. Problems with the computer system lie at the bottom of that. The Government introduced a new system of calculation, which has experienced problems, again because the computer system has not worked. Because people have not been moved on to the new system, two people working side by side, with exactly the same circumstances, can pay two vastly different rates, which is leading to a great deal of anger and concern about the agency.
	What is missing from the Queen's Speech as regards the agency is some idea as to how to tackle the inherent problems, how to get the system working, and how to make sure that money is paid over quickly. Prior to being elected to this House, I was a practising solicitor, and dealt with many family law cases. A simple system operated of going to the courts to get an interim payment quickly and efficiently, until the rest was dealt with. When the agency was set up, we were told that the courts were inefficient, but it was possible to get an interim payment through the courts in weeks, rather than the months taken by the agency. I respectfully suggest to the Government that they consider seriously at least re-introducing an interim payment that can be obtained through the courts, to speed the matter up.
	The Queen's Speech contains nothing relating to the state pension. Other Members have talked about the tax credit system and its complexity. A great deal of anger is boiling up among our pensioners about that system. The Scottish National party proposes a citizen's pension as a way to tackle that, and I appeal again to the Government to consider seriously those issues. We cannot go on as we are doing, with more and more pensioners having to apply for means-tested benefit, and with the Government's estimate that some 75 per cent. of pensioners may be eligible for some form of pension credit in the near future. That is scandalous—we should aim for a citizen's pension of a reasonable amount, which will take pensioners out of poverty. Interestingly, when the Prime Minister spoke about pensioners earlier, he made a distinction between poverty among children and hardship among pensioners. There is poverty among pensioners too, and it is getting worse because of the tax credit system and rising fuel prices that will hit many this winter. Nothing in the Queen's Speech deals with those issues.
	On energy, we would have looked for the Government finally to tackle the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets on the question of transmission charges relating to renewable resources in north Scotland, which are likely to strangle many of those projects at birth unless action is taken. That issue is being allowed to drift on with no end in sight. If the Government do not take firm action to make sure that Ofgem introduces a suitable and fair system of transmission charges, there is no chance of reaching any of the renewable targets set by the Government or any other renewable targets. The issue of transmission charges and the sunset clauses will ensure that many projects never proceed in the first place.
	We heard mention in the Queen's Speech of a referendum on the EU, with reference to a Bill being introduced to give effect to the constitutional treaty for the EU, subject to a referendum. We heard much about that in this debate. A shiver ran up my spine when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr.   Purchase) spoke about the counter-balancing force of the European Union against the United States. Such talk will increase yet further the vote against the European constitution. My party is generally pro-European, but we do not want to see a federal Europe, to which reference has been made, and we will not support the constitution in its current form. In my area of Scotland, we have seen the effect of the common fisheries policy on fishing communities. Indeed, it has devastated many traditional communities in the north and east of Scotland. The constitution as currently drafted will make that situation worse. Very many people in Scotland will take the same view, and if a referendum were held today, the constitution would be booted well and truly out of the park. If the Government are serious about putting the issue to a referendum, they need to tackle the inequities of the common fisheries policy in particular.
	Mention was also made—obliquely perhaps—of the situation in Iraq and the need to help the Iraqi Government establish democracy through elections in January. That is all fair and well, but the Government must also consider how the situation in Iraq will be stabilised. I urge the Government to consider again securing greater UN involvement and replacing American and British troops, who, rightly or wrongly, are seen as the troops who fought the war and, as a result, are considered by many Iraqis in a different way from troops sent specifically as peacemakers. We should consider replacing many of the troops currently there with troops under a UN command, preferably drawn from Muslim nations, who would have a greater connection with many Iraqis.
	The Black Watch is currently deployed in Iraq, but the Queen's Speech tells us nothing about the Government's intentions towards regiments in Scotland and parts of England. At the same time as the Black Watch is fighting in Iraq, the Government intend to amalgamate the regiment and get rid of the Black Watch tradition back home in Scotland. That is totally unacceptable to my party and to the vast majority of the people of Scotland. The Government must come clean—if they expect our troops to take part in such deployments in Iraq, they must keep faith with the troops. There is nothing worse than for troops to be sent overseas to take part in a war, whether or not one agrees with that war, and to seek at the same time the end of their regiment back home. The regiments mean a great deal to the troops who belong to them. As civilians, we often fail to recognise the family feeling within regiments. I have become aware of the family feeling within the Scottish regiments and the determination within Scotland that those regiments should not be amalgamated into one super- regiment or even into a fantasy brigade, an idea which was floated the other week.
	Those issues should have been covered in the Queen's Speech, but they were not even mentioned. However, none of us expects many parts of the Queen's Speech to get anywhere near the statute book, so perhaps the loss is not great, and we can return to those issues during the coming election campaign.

Philip Hammond: Is my hon. Friend aware that not only does a remedy exist to that problem in the Queen's Speech, but that the Government do not recognise that the problem exists? Indeed, Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have said on the record that the 1998 Act plays no part in the problems with Travellers that are currently being experienced up and down the country.

Mark Francois: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on the Queen's Speech. We heard two very fine opening speeches. The first was from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who amused the House with his easy manner and some funny anecdotes from his time as a Member of Parliament. That speech was followed by an equally fine one from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), who told us about some wonderful experiences that she had had as, among other things, a parliamentary tap dancer. She described how some odd things had happened to her once when she dashed out of the shower for a Division. She also paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr.   Swayne) and his military service in Iraq. I would like to amplify everything that she said and to pay tribute to the time that he spent in the service of his country. I shall seek to follow some of the apposite remarks that he made about our armed forces, and in particular the future of our infantry battalions.
	I am concerned about the effect of the Queen's Speech on my constituents and the fact that, in many regards, it does not address a number of the problems that they experience in their day-to-day lives. Many problems that we face in my constituency relate in one way or another to the pressures of over-development. My constituency has four secondary schools, all of which are good, but all of which are now full. As more and more houses are constructed in the constituency, it is difficult to see where the children of secondary school age will be able to go to school.
	Also on the subject of over-development, it is very difficult to register with an NHS doctor in Rayleigh, and practically impossible to register with an NHS dentist. Essex now faces the prospect of 131,000 houses being imposed on the county by 2021. There is no realistic way in which we can satisfactorily accommodate house building on that scale. The Government's policy of national housing targets, which the Queen's Speech gave no indication of revoking, is leading to that incessant pressure. That is further amplified by the figures being endorsed by regional bodies—in this case, the East of England regional assembly.
	There has been a debate about the legitimacy of regional government. After the recent referendum in the north-east of England, in which—even in that area, which traditionally is supposed to have been in favour of the concept—the proposition was debated and defeated by 78 per cent. to 22 per cent., I contend that regional government is stone dead. It has no moral or political legitimacy whatever in the other areas of England. People who sit in regional chambers can make any declarations they wish, but there is no real connection with the electorate, whom they claim to represent, to give any authority to those decisions. I, for one, will now campaign vigorously against any attempts by an unelected quango in the form of the East of England regional assembly to impose 131,000 houses on the county of Essex, including on my constituents.
	Flooding is an emotive issue for us in Essex, given how we suffered in the so-called great flood of 1953. Some 300 people died in Britain that night, about 100 of them in Essex, principally when the sea defences burst on Canvey Island. The sea came in and many people lost their lives in tragic circumstances. For historical reasons, we take the issue of flooding particularly seriously in my part of the world.
	That being the case, we were very disappointed when the Government decided to abolish the Essex local flood defence committee and to merge it with a regional flood defence committee which, it is proposed, will comprise both Norfolk and Suffolk. Our view in Essex is that we had a perfectly good flood defence committee, which was not broke, so we did not require anybody to come and fix it. Unfortunately, because of the fixation with regionalism and regional bodies, the Government still appear determined to press on with that decision, which may be popular with them but is very unpopular in Essex, and especially southern Essex.
	Recently at Question Time I have pressed Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reverse that decision, and I hoped that there might be some suggestion in the Queen's Speech that the Government had reflected and decided to change their view—but having heard the Gracious Speech today, I regret to say that there appears to have been no such reflection. We in Essex will continue to campaign and try to persuade the Government to change their mind on this important matter before the changes happen next April.
	I now want to touch briefly on the subject of policing, and to pay tribute to Chief Superintendent John Mauger, the divisional commander in Rayleigh. We have heard much about antisocial behaviour in the past few months, and Rayleigh division has recently established an antisocial behaviour squad of hard-nosed officers, led by an ex-Royal Marine. Its specific mission is to take on gangs of youths who have been causing antisocial disruption across the division, to target the ringleaders of gangs and to take them out of circulation, not least as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to fall foul of the law in future. I wholeheartedly welcome that initiative, and I praise the division for taking it on. I hope that it will be a success. Initial indications are encouraging, and I hope that the squad will continue to do good service on behalf of my constituents and bring antisocial youths to book.
	I said that I would follow on from some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, and I want to amplify what he said about defence, not least as I understand that such matters are still the subject of some discussion within Government circles.
	The Government made a lot about security in the Queen's Speech, but it seems to me that emphasising the importance of security, while seeking to reduce the number of regular infantry battalions in the British Army makes no sense whatever. As I pointed out earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, there is little logic in seeking increasingly to intervene in trouble spots around the world, while at the same time reducing the number of troops who are best trained and prepared to undertake such interventions.
	I very much hope that the Government will reconsider that matter and decide that there is no need to abolish the battalions that are first to be called for by other countries around the world when peacekeeping troops are required. I repeat the point that if the Americans called for a British infantry battalion when they have the most powerful Army in the world, it is a lesson that should not be lost on Defence Ministers.
	I conclude with a particular plea for the Scottish regiments, and I do so as an English Member of Parliament. Some of the Scottish regiments have tremendous traditions, which are not just a matter of history but stand as a record of the good service that they have given to date and that they will—we hope—give to the country in the future. It would be a travesty if the Black Watch, after its brave service in Iraq in what I believe remains a good cause, were to be recalled to the UK at the end of its tour of duty only to be told to prepare for a disbandment parade. That would be necessary if they were amalgamated, and their cap badge would be lost. I believe that the Black Watch has given very good service and that the House should take proper notice of it. I would like to hear a definitive announcement that the Black Watch, and indeed the other Scottish regiments, are to be saved. That would benefit all Members, all parties and all the people of this country who owe those regiments such a tremendous debt.
	Debate adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
	Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Martin Caton: This feels to me like an Adjournment debate in more senses than one. It feels as though I have reconvened a meeting that we held in these very premises in March last year, when I secured a debate with a very similar title to tonight's—"Government Support for Learning-disabled Athletes". My right hon. Friend the Minister will remember that, at that time, my stimulus for raising the issue was a letter that I had received from my constituent, David Vaughan, and his mum, Daphne.
	David was, and is, a learning-disabled young man with an enthusiasm and a capacity for swimming. He was then 17 and he could not understand why the International Paralympic Committee had banned all learning-disabled athletes from the Athens Paralympics. He wanted to get that position changed before the games went ahead. I shall not repeat the arguments that I made in that debate, except quickly to remind the House how the exclusion of learning-disabled athletes came about and what was done at that time to try to rectify the problem.
	The Paralympic Committee's decision came about after it was discovered that 10 male Spanish basketball players in the Sydney Paralympics of 2000 had cheated because they did not have the learning disability that they claimed to have. That led first to the suspension of the International Sports Federation for Persons with   Intellectual Disability, called INAS-FID for short, and to a ban on learning-disabled athletes from all Paralympic competition. The IPC then called on INAS-FID to take a number of other actions, which it agreed to do. Probably the most important was helping to establish an eligibility and verification scheme that everyone could sign up to.
	That was, and remains, the key issue of contention. Between 2001 and early 2003, real progress was made in some areas, but in February the IPC management committee ruled that not enough had been done and that learning-disabled athletes would not go to Athens to participate in the Paralympics. That was, of course, a terrible kick in the teeth to the 15 British athletes with learning disability on the world-class performance programme who had been training as hard as they could with Athens as their goal. It was also a blow to learning-disabled athletes such as David Vaughan, back in the Mumbles in the Gower, who was then 17 and not yet at a stage to be able to go to Athens, but who wanted to know that learning-disabled athletes were still respected members of the Paralympic family.
	In the Minister's reply to me last year—and, indeed, in his replies to questions that I have put to him in the past few weeks—he explained that the decision on eligibility must remain the sole responsibility of the International Paralympic Committee. However, he made clear his and the Government's hope and expectation that those problems would be overcome and that an acceptable eligibility verification and protest system would be put in place to ensure that athletes with learning disability returned to compete in the international sporting arena.
	If this were an adjourned meeting recalled to discuss progress after more than a year and a half, there would be precious little to report. The Athens Paralympics went ahead, and was a wonderful event. I congratulate all the British athletes with physical disability who did so well, but I still feel that it is a great shame that no learning-disabled athletes were able to take part.
	Matters have moved on since last March. Sadly, they seem to have moved in the wrong direction, and there is now a danger that they will accelerate over a cliff. I have received another letter from David and his mum, alerting me to the possibility that, at its meeting in Cairo on Thursday—the day after tomorrow—the IPC will decide to exclude learning-disabled athletes permanently.
	As I understand it, the decision stems from a motion passed by the IPC general assembly. Basically, the motion said that the ban would be lifted if INIS-FID was able to develop a
	"watertight, reliable, valid and proven"
	system for the inclusion of learning-disabled athletes in IPC competition. However, if INIS-FID cannot provide that system, a proposal to exclude learning-disabled athletes from all IPC events should be presented.
	In preparation for Thursday's meeting, the IPC has circulated a lot of information about what INIS-FID has done and various expert assessments of that work. According to the IPC, the bottom line is that the eligibility verification system proposed by INIS-FID has not been tested rigorously enough. It does not include a satisfactory scientific method of showing how learning disability affects different sports differently, which has prevented the proper testing of a protest procedure. The IPC has therefore found that INIS-FID has failed to demonstrate the development of a
	"watertight, reliable, valid and proven"
	system for athletes with learning disability.
	At about the same time as I got the letter from David and Daphne, I was contacted by the charity Mencap, which is campaigning to get the ban lifted on behalf of learning-disabled athletes throughout our country. It is doing a good job, as a full-page article in the Daily Mirror last week showed. I want to put on record my thanks to Mencap for the help that it gave me on this issue, especially in providing me with copies of all the documents circulated by the IPC for Thursday's meeting. Frankly, a lot of it is technical and requires more knowledge than I have about particular sports. However, virtually all the papers that I read on eligibility verification for learning-disabled athletes said that we are not there yet, but we are getting there.
	There seemed to be a general recognition that the sports information and consequences questionnaire developed as the foundation for the new eligibility verification regime could be the way to assess learning-disabled athletes. In any case, the feeling seemed to be that genuine athletes with learning disabilities should be in the Paralympics, that it must be possible to develop mutually acceptable eligibility criteria, and that everyone should renew their efforts to achieve that goal.
	In those circumstances, talk of a permanent or even indefinite ban is premature and counterproductive, to put it mildly. However, that recognition of the place of especially talented learning-disabled athletes in the Paralympics—which is, I am sure, the majority opinion in the world of disabled athletics—is still not universally held. Sadly, some argue that a learning disability is not a disability that should make someone eligible to compete in disability sport. They argue that because sport is all about physical performance, only physically disabled people should be eligible. That view may be understandable, but it is wrong.
	High-quality athletic performance in any sport requires a combination of physical fitness, natural talent and the mental abilities of concentration and planning, as well as an ability to implement strategy and tactics and to cope with stress. Another ingredient is, of course, fast reaction times. That is why learning-disabled athletes cannot compete successfully in mainstream sports at the highest level, and why they belong in the Paralympics. It is also why the IPC needs to become a bit more hands on in achieving the robust verification procedure which everyone agrees is needed. After all, one of its stated objectives is
	"to support and encourage education, cultural, research and scientific activities that contribute to the development and promotion of the Paralympic movement."
	Permanently banning one group of people from participation in the highest level of competition specifically for disabled people would be an astonishing measure. At a time when, across the world, people have been pressing for a more inclusive agenda and for improved rights for disabled people, a body set up to promote disability sport is on the brink of excluding this important group of disabled people from the most important events. If that goes ahead, it is not only learning-disabled athletes who will be the losers; it will be the reputation of the International Paralympic Committee and perhaps the Paralympics themselves. Surely, nobody can want that.
	My first request to the Minister is that, while recognising the independence of the International Paralympic Committee, he does everything that he and the Government can to help move things in the right direction and get learning-disabled athletes back into the Paralympics as soon as possible, and certainly before the Beijing games in 2008. The British Paralympic Association is keen to see learning-disabled athletes back in the Paralympics.
	Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider the consequences of excluding learning-disabled athletes from the Paralympics on funding for organisations and institutions involved with delivering sport for learning-disabled people and for individual athletes? Historically, about £50,000 was awarded to the UK Sports Association for People with Learning Disability for the furtherance of Government elite sport objectives. Funding of that nature is based on medal results at Paralympic level. If learning disability is banned from the Paralympics, funding will cease at the end of this financial year.
	Sport England gives funds to the English Federation of Disability Sport for the enhancement of grass-roots sports for all impairment groups. However, there is no statutory requirement for any of that funding to be distributed to learning-disability sport. No resources have been provided to the English Sports Association since 2000, and the chief executive has had to stand down for two months as a result of funding difficulties.
	For many individual learning-disabled athletes, the situation has been even worse. Pre-Sydney, a small number of learning-disabled athletes were on the world-class performance programme for athletics and swimming, funded by UK Sport. After Sydney, all learning-disabled athletes were dropped from that programme, and swimmers were moved from the programme aimed at Athens to the world-class potential programme targeted at Beijing. If Thursday's vote goes against learning-disabled athletes, those swimmers will also be dropped from eligibility for that support.
	Of course, the elite schemes are being rolled out to athletes below potential gifted and talented standard, sometimes in secondary schools through ideas such as the talented athletes scholarship scheme. It looks at the moment as if learning-disabled athletes will not be recognised by those schemes if they are not part of the Paralympic movement. We need some political leadership at this difficult time to ensure that until we get learning-disabled athletes back into the Paralympics, funding will be available from the lottery or the public purse to keep them and their organisations going.
	I am pleased to report that my constituent, David Vaughan, was selected to compete at the global games in Sweden during the summer. Those games were set up for learning-disabled athletes when they were excluded from the Athens Paralympics. He achieved his own personal time and is now in the top 30 world ranking for butterfly. He had a great time, and he and his family are understandably proud.
	Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, until we get the Paralympic verification system that lets learning-disabled athletes back where they belong, medal success at the global games might attract appropriate financial support. I am mindful of the precedent set by UK Deaf Sport, which is not connected to the Paralympic movement but has a separate international competition, the deaf Olympics. That is recognised by UK Sport, which means that funding is awarded on the basis of medal success there. In 2004, that amounted to £75,000. If the IPC decision goes against learning disability on Thursday, it should surely be possible for UK Sport to regard the global games as the pinnacle of learning-disability sport and provide funding accordingly.
	Even if we get the wrong decision on Thursday, that should not be the end of the campaign. The correct place for the best learning-disabled athletes to compete is at the Paralympics. That is what they want, and that is what is right. It is also what the Paralympic movement is all about. Another of its key objectives is to promote Paralympic sports without discrimination for political, economic, disability, gender or race reasons. I hope that every voting member of the International Paralympics Committee has those words in mind when they come to make their decision the day after tomorrow.

Richard Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) for securing the debate this evening on the important issue of the Government's funding for learning-disabled athletes. He acknowledges that the Government are fully committed to providing opportunities for everyone to participate in sport. We believe that everyone should enjoy the benefits of sport. One of my Department's strategic priorities is to focus on communities so that we push forward an agenda that will increase and broaden the impact of sport across society now and for the future.
	We have a public service agreement targeted specifically at increasing the take-up of sporting opportunities among priority groups by 2008. We therefore recognise the need to improve opportunities for people from under-represented groups, including those with learning disabilities, to participate and compete at all levels. The Government wholeheartedly support disability sport. Sport England—the Government-funded body that distributes lottery funding—promotes community sport and is responsible for developing and maintaining the infrastructure of sport in England. It provides substantial funding for the English Federation of Disability Sport to lead a unified, co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to sports development in England for disabled people. It gives more than £1 million a year to the EFDS and a further £1 million in lottery funding goes to the federation's inclusive fitness initiative, which is very successful.
	The partnership between Sport England and the EFDS is vital in ensuring that the federation can be an effective lead for disability sport, as well as acting as an umbrella group for the seven disability sport organisations recognised by Sport England. In addition, the national strategy for physical education, school sport and club links is aimed at all children, whatever their ability or circumstances, and provision is made for young disabled people in the gifted and talented programme, which is part of the Government's wider strategy to improve gifted and talented education.
	Young people with learning difficulties have been taking on leadership and volunteering roles as part of our very successful "step into sport". Of course, participation in sport by disabled people is not confined to community level. If we are to take sport seriously as a means of enriching individuals' lives, and of allowing them to take control of their futures and to exercise their birthright of being equal alongside able-bodied people, it is our moral duty to do everything that we can to foster an environment in which disabled people can flourish and excel in the elite arena of sport.
	However, I am aware that during the 2000 Paralympic games in Sydney, several athletes—none of them British, I am pleased to say—who were subsequently found not to have met the eligibility criteria, competed and won medals in events for athletes with learning disabilities. That is what my hon. Friend spoke about. As a result, the International Paralympic Committee decided to suspend athletes with learning disabilities from the Paralympics. The International Sports Federation for Persons with Intellectual Disability had its membership of the International Paralympic Committee suspended, and athletes with learning disabilities did not compete in Athens. The IPC has charged the international community of learning disability sporting organisations with coming up with a system of classification that will satisfy the IPC and see athletes with learning disabilities return to compete in the international sporting arena.
	Until the issue is resolved and a classification system agreed, UK Sport has taken the view that it cannot continue to fund elite athletes with learning disabilities. UK Sport's action on this is in line with policy regarding the use of lottery funding to support success at the Olympic and Paralympic games and would apply to any athlete on the world-class performance programme.
	I can, however, answer the question that my hon. Friend asked. UK Sport has provided the UKSAPLD with £50,000 for this financial year. This has traditionally been provided because of the organisation's work in registering athletes with learning difficulties for the Paralympics. However, although learning-disabled athletes are at present no longer part of the Paralympics, in recognition of the organisation's wider role for people with learning difficulties, financial support has been continued and UK Sport is reviewing the funding of UKSAPLD, along with its other funding decisions for Paralympic sports and organisations, to determine the level of support that will be provided for 2005–06.
	UKSAPLD has been advised that UK Sport may no longer fund it if it cannot resolve its current financial problems, to which my hon. Friend referred. The association is likely to receive some funding next year but a decision has not yet been taken about how much, and it is being supported solely by UK Sport's £50,000 Exchequer commitment.
	I should like to reassure my hon. Friend about the talented athlete scholarship scheme. The eligibility criteria for the scheme were established following full consultation across sport and education, which included the British Paralympic Association and the national governing bodies of sport. In considering the criteria, those organisations have been mindful of the present situation regarding the exclusion of learning-disabled athletes from the Paralympics. Currently, athletes with a learning disability are not eligible for TASS; however, should the IPC decide at its meeting on Thursday or in the future to include learning-disabled athletes in the Paralympics, the eligibility criteria for support through TASS will be revisited.
	The Government are aware of the complex issues of classification in disability sport, and recognise the problems associated with the current national and international classification system. The complex issue of classification in disability sport must be resolved between the international community of learning disability sporting organisations and the elected members of the IPC. Although the INAS-FID has been reinstated as a member of the IPC, athletes with learning disabilities remain suspended from the Paralympics until the IPC is satisfied with the system of classification.
	My Department is in regular contact with the EFDS about that, and I am very confident that the EFDS will continue to do everything it can to help our elite athletes with learning disabilities and to improve sporting opportunities at the grass roots for people with those disabilities. I sincerely hope that a system of classification, such as my hon. Friend described, will be found and that it will secure a future for learning disability sport within the Paralympics. I hope, too, that the outcome of the IPC meeting on 25 November, which will consider the future involvement of athletes with learning disabilities at the Paralympics, will not prevent our elite athletes with those disabilities from having a future in the Olympic movement.
	As Minister for Sport, I will continue to promote an agenda that will allow everyone involved in disability sport, irrespective of their sporting level, the chance to succeed. That is Government policy now, as it will be in the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Nine o'clock.